On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 07:21:56 +0530 Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mah...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> +enum MCE_TlbErrorType { > + MCE_TLB_ERROR_INDETERMINATE = 0, > + MCE_TLB_ERROR_PARITY = 1, > + MCE_TLB_ERROR_MULTIHIT = 2, > + MCE_TLB_ERROR_TLBIEL_PROG_ERROR = 3, > +}; The new TLBIE error isn't really a TLB error as such. Not a hardware error. I added a new "user" type for it. I don't think we can handle it just by flushing TLB because it can also be raised in response to invalid non-local tlbie. We could flush all TLBs maybe but I think also have to advance nip to return to. > + > +enum MCE_NestErrorType { > + MCE_NEST_ERROR_ABRT_IFETCH = 0, > + MCE_NEST_ERROR_ABRT_IFETCH_TABLEWALK = 1, > + MCE_NEST_ERROR_ABRT_LOAD = 2, > + MCE_NEST_ERROR_ABRT_LOAD_TABLEWALK = 3, > +}; > + > +enum MCE_CrespErrorType { > + MCE_CRESP_ERROR_BAD_RADDR_IFETCH = 0, > + MCE_CRESP_ERROR_BAD_RADDR_IFETCH_TABLEWALK = 1, > + MCE_CRESP_ERROR_BAD_RADDR_LOAD = 2, > + MCE_CRESP_ERROR_BAD_RADDR_LOAD_TABLEWALK = 3, > +}; > + > +enum MCE_FspaceErrorType { > + MCE_FSPACE_ERROR_IFETCH = 0, > + MCE_FSPACE_ERROR_IFETCH_TABLEWALK = 1, > + MCE_FSPACE_ERROR_RADDR_TRANSLATION = 2, > + MCE_FSPACE_ERROR_RADDR_LOAD = 3, > +}; > + > +enum MCE_AsyncErrorType { > + MCE_ASYNC_ERROR_REAL_ADDR_STORE = 0, > + MCE_ASYNC_ERROR_NEST_ABRT_STORE = 1, > +}; > + > +struct OpalMachineCheckEvent { Can we have more of a think about this structure and error types before making it an OPAL API? Errors don't always fit neatly into a simple classification like this. For example "async" is not really an error. It's a property of how the error is reported. The error is a timeout or real address error. And it's caused by a store. And initiated by nest or cResp... Other errors are caused by a table walk that was caused by a store, etc. I shoehorned these async errors into realaddr/link types in my patch along with a different severity (i.e., not SYNC). But I think we can do a lot better with a clean slate for OPAL. More general thing is, I wonder how much we need to know of the implementation details in this API? This still seems like it's unnecessarily split between OS and FW. I think it would be much nicer if we just return a set of things that the OS can usefully respond to and have firmware construct the detailed messages for logging. That way we'll have much fewer new types of errors we don't know how to handle, and never have to report unknown error. Thanks, Nick