[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] Add mcelog support for xen platform

> > > Now xen is a whole another deal - it is purely a piece of software.
> > 
> > Perfect. Software is more elastic than hardware - so the Xen ABI
> > for the MCE can be changed then to reflect the new format if required.
> And this "elastic" piece of software is yet another thing I have to deal
> with when working on MCE which is strictly doing _hardware_ support. And
> I don't want to do that - if you hook in the mce_log() interface, you're
> practically becoming yet another user of it which I have to account for
> when doing changes to the core MCE code.

Or you can delegate.
> [..]
> > Delegate testing to sub-maintainers. In this case that would be me and
> > Liu.
> Ok, just purely hypothetically, what happens if there's no one to update
> this code anymore? What if Oracle or Citrix or whoever it is, is not
> interested in maintaining xen anymore, or those drivers or whatever?
> I'm stuck with users of this which I can't shake off because there's no
> upstream development. Oh, and then there's the distros which already
> have their installs and they'd never update their setup because it works
> and why touch it... and so on and so on...

In case I get hit by a bus and nobody steps up from the Xen community shortly
after that or Intel is not interested anymore in this driver, then you:
 1) mark it as CONFIG_BROKEN
 2) wait some time until somebody elects themselves as the maintainer.
 3) And if that does not become true, then you do 'git rm ..'. 

Distros are in the business of providing maintainship services. That is
after all how they make their money. The Kconfig by default is set to 'n'
and the wording can be written further to inhibit folks from using.

But I do follow Fedora Core and Ubuntu bugs that have the word 'xen' in
them to fix the issues they encounter. You are probably doing the same
thing (s/xen/mce)- so why don't you point the sub-maintainer to the
distro bug so he/she can fix it?

.. snip..
> > I am not sure I see why we cannot fix the practical problems as they pop
> > up?
> See above.
> [..]
> > > hook into arch/x86/ instead of doing your own stuff?
> > 
> > I think what you are suggesting is to _not_ reuse existing APIs. That
> > seems counter-intuive to general software development. There are
> > exceptions of course - when the existing API needs to change a lot
> > (or needs to be thrown out), and there is this one little driver that
> > keeps on using the old interface and can't change - at that point I can
> > see the purpose of forking it. But until then - using existing APIs is
> > the way to go.
> I just love it when guys left and right start teaching me about stuff,
> it's like I even begged for it...
> You're not reusing the existing API because mce_log is not an API to
> anything - it is an internal x86 MCE logging thing to put a struct mce
> into a static ring buffer.
> The API is /dev/mcelog and there you should interface, not hook into
> internal stuff and cripple it from developing any further.

I mentioned on a couple of occasions that we would be keeping the implementation
in lock-step and testing as neccessary. And if you choose to omit this
driver and asked us to develop the appropiate patch, we can surely
do that too.

> [snip more senseless drivel]
> > > Now, with your own buffer solution, nothing breaks and all is happy,
> > > a win-win, if you wish. I think this is much simpler and easier a
> > > solution.
> > 
> > Not sure what you mean by 'own buffer solution'. Are you talking about
> > using the trace_mce_record or the ras_printk instead of the mce_log?
> > I would think that is the job of the MCE decoders?
> No, I mean to copy the mce_log() code along with the functions that
> create the char device /dev/mcelog - mce_chrdev_*.
> Btw, you'd probably be done with it if you'd taken the time to do that
> instead of arguing your cause.

I am not advocating that we stick a ground in stone and say: "this is
how mce_log(x)" from now on MUST be used. If that is impression left by
my wording - my mistake. I would want the driver to change to adhere
to the new function calls/structures.

> > Please keep in mind that this driver is not trying to decode anything -
> I know that.
> > it just lifting raw events, massaging them a bit, and sending them
> > downstream. Similar to how the APEI does it.
> Please stop talking about APEI - I told you why it doesn't apply here in
> a previous mail.

Right, b/c it is hardware and is set in stone.
> -- 
> 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

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.