Re: [PATCH 1/6] HWPOISON: clean up memory_failure() vs.__memory_failure()

[Borislav Petkov]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 08:47:49AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > -/* dummy to break dependency. actual code is in mm/memory-failure.c */
> > -void __attribute__((weak)) memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int vector)
> > +#ifndef CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE
> > +int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int vector, int flags)
> >  {
> >  	printk(KERN_ERR "Action optional memory failure at %lx ignored\n", pfn);
> 
> Btw., while at it, could we phrase this message in a more 
> obvious way to users, such as 'Non-fatal memory failure at %lx 
> ignored'?

Yeah, that's might not be as correct as we want it to be. AO means it
is an uncorrectable error, i.e. it will become fatal if we'd consumed
it, but it isn't that now because we just saw it passing by in the
cacheline...

Maybe "Fatal, unconsumed error ignored..."

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach
GM: Alberto Bozzo
Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen
HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/