On 9/13/2017 8:40 AM, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
On 8/29/2017 2:16 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:53:41AM -0600, Tyler Baicar wrote:
Currently we acknowledge errors before clearing the error status.
This could cause a new error to be populated by firmware in-between
the error a
On 8/29/2017 2:16 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:53:41AM -0600, Tyler Baicar wrote:
Currently we acknowledge errors before clearing the error status.
This could cause a new error to be populated by firmware in-between
the error acknowledgment and the error status clearing
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:53:41AM -0600, Tyler Baicar wrote:
> Currently we acknowledge errors before clearing the error status.
> This could cause a new error to be populated by firmware in-between
> the error acknowledgment and the error status clearing which would
> cause the second error's sta
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 08:44:21PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> For my opinion, since you asked, the either case needs a comment on
>> top of that additional check.
>
> That's because the comment belongs to the v2 part of the check.
So
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 08:44:21PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> For my opinion, since you asked, the either case needs a comment on
>> top of that additional check.
>
> That's because the comment belongs to the v2 part of the check.
>
>
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 08:44:21PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> For my opinion, since you asked, the either case needs a comment on
> top of that additional check.
That's because the comment belongs to the v2 part of the check.
> Separate conditionals in independent cases are, of course, bette
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 08:20:37PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>if (rc != -ENOENT && is_hest_type_generic_v2(ghes))
>> :-)
>>
>> But again, your call to choose :-)
>
> Slow down please.
>
> What do you think is more readable: a
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 08:20:37PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>if (rc != -ENOENT && is_hest_type_generic_v2(ghes))
> :-)
>
> But again, your call to choose :-)
Slow down please.
What do you think is more readable: a compound if-statement or two
simple ones, the second one with an exp
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 08:01:00PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> You can also do this here, like
>> if (is_hest_type_generic_v2(ghes) && rc != -ENOENT)
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170824081408.iwg7qyyr226bt...@pd.tnic
i
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 08:01:00PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> You can also do this here, like
> if (is_hest_type_generic_v2(ghes) && rc != -ENOENT)
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170824081408.iwg7qyyr226bt...@pd.tnic
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, J
On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 10:53 -0600, Tyler Baicar wrote:
> Currently we acknowledge errors before clearing the error status.
> This could cause a new error to be populated by firmware in-between
> the error acknowledgment and the error status clearing which would
> cause the second error's status to
Currently we acknowledge errors before clearing the error status.
This could cause a new error to be populated by firmware in-between
the error acknowledgment and the error status clearing which would
cause the second error's status to be cleared without being handled.
So, clear the error status be
12 matches
Mail list logo
