From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBA72C433EF for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2021 19:13:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S245700AbhK3TQf (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2021 14:16:35 -0500 Received: from mga07.intel.com ([134.134.136.100]:57604 "EHLO mga07.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230100AbhK3TQf (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2021 14:16:35 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10184"; a="299693466" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.87,276,1631602800"; d="scan'208";a="299693466" Received: from orsmga006.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.51]) by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Nov 2021 11:13:15 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.87,276,1631602800"; d="scan'208";a="459734500" Received: from agluck-desk2.sc.intel.com (HELO agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com) ([10.3.52.146]) by orsmga006-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Nov 2021 11:13:15 -0800 Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 11:13:14 -0800 From: "Luck, Tony" To: Shuai Xue Cc: mchehab@kernel.org, bp@alien8.de, james.morse@arm.com, rric@kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zhangliguang@linux.alibaba.com, zhuo.song@linux.alibaba.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] edac,ghes,cper: Add device to Memory Error Record Message-ID: References: <20211130131648.85860-1-xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20211130131648.85860-1-xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 09:16:48PM +0800, Shuai Xue wrote: > If Bit 7 of Validation Bits is valid, the device number of the memory > associated with errors should be reported to Memory Error Record. > > Signed-off-by: Shuai Xue > --- > drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c b/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c > index a918ca93e4f7..cf98b270d6f7 100644 > --- a/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c > +++ b/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c > @@ -378,6 +378,8 @@ void ghes_edac_report_mem_error(int sev, struct cper_sec_mem_err *mem_err) > if (mem_err->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_BANK_ADDRESS) > p += sprintf(p, "bank_address:%d ", > mem_err->bank & CPER_MEM_BANK_ADDRESS_MASK); > + if (mem_err->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_DEVICE) > + p += sprintf(p, "device:%d ", mem_err->device); > if (mem_err->validation_bits & (CPER_MEM_VALID_ROW | CPER_MEM_VALID_ROW_EXT)) { > u32 row = mem_err->row; > This looks OK (same as code in drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c in the cper_mem_err_location() function. But that makes me wonder why there is near duplication of code in ghes_edac.c? The cper.c code seems to be written defensively using scnprintf() instead of sprintf(). Could ghes_edac share the same code? -Tony