On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Luck, Tony <tony.l...@intel.com> wrote: > + if (!(no_way_out && cfg->tolerant < 3)) > mce_clear_state(toclear); > > Style - I think this is easier to grok: > > if (!no_way_out || cfg->tolerant >=3) > mce_clear_state(toclear); > > but not too strongly if other like !(a && b) form.
I tend to agree with you. It came up during our internal review, and others argued the other way. But since I'm in charge now, I'll change it back ;-) > I'm never sure how to treat the crazy levels of "tolerant" though. Do > we really want to clear the banks? In one sense we do ... we are still > running and might see more UC errors. Since newer UC errors don't > overwrite older ones, clearing the banks allows us to see how many > errors are piling up and being ignored. > > But running with tolerant==3 is likely to end in tears ... should we erase > the evidence on what bad things happened? It probably doesn't make a huge difference since you're not supposed to run with tolerant=3, but I kind of understood the logic to be that if we're going to keep running, we need to clear the banks, and if we're going to crash, we need to leave them intact so whatever runs next gets a chance to look at them. So with tolerant==3, we are going to continue running, and I think for debugging purposes, it's useful to see how many additional errors are happening. Havard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
