On Wednesday 19 May 2010 16:35:54 Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 16:35 +1000, Mark Nelson wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > > > Thanks for looking over these patches! > .. > > > > > > Existing code I know, but the error handling in here is a little lax, > > > what's not going to work if we miss some or all of the interrupts? > > > > That's a good point. For the existing code, if we miss an EPOW event > > it just means that the event won't be logged (as that's all we do with > > those events at the moment, although there is a comment saying > > that it should be fixed to take appropriate action depending upon the > > type of power failure); but it's a bigger problem if we miss one of the > > RAS errors because then we could miss a fatal event that we should halt > > the machine on. And for the upcoming IO events it's even worse as we'd > > miss an interrupt from the device... > > Yeah that's what I was thinking. > > > I would do it in a follow-on patch rather than this one, but what would > > be a good course of action if we can't request the interrupt? > > Yes a follow on patch is the way to do it. > > There shouldn't be that many reasons the request fails, other than > ENOMEM, or broken device tree perhaps. It's definitely worth a > WARN_ON(), people notice those at least.
That sounds good. I'll do a simple follow-on patch that adds the WARN_ON(). Thanks! Mark _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
