sorry fix a typo.

On 2018/1/23 17:23, gengdongjiu wrote:

quoted

There are problems with doing this:

Oct. 18, 2017, 10:26 a.m. James Morse wrote:
| How do SEA and SEI interact?
|
| As far as I can see they can both interrupt each other, which isn't something
| the single in_nmi() path in APEI can handle. I thinks we should fix this
| first.

[..]

| SEA gets away with a lot of things because its synchronous. SEI isn't. Xie
| XiuQi pointed to the memory_failure_queue() code. We can use this directly
| from SEA, but not SEI. (what happens if an SError arrives while we are
| queueing memory_failure work from an IRQ).
|
| The one that scares me is the trace-point reporting stuff. What happens if an
| SError arrives while we are enabling a trace point? (these are static-keys
| right?)
|
|  I don't think we can just plumb SEI in like this and be done with it.
|  (I'm looking at teasing out the estatus cache code from being x86:NMI only.
|  This way we solve the same 'cant do this from NMI context' with the same
|  code'.)


I will post what I've got for this estatus-cache thing as an RFC, its not ready
to be considered yet.

Yes, I know you are dong that. Your serial's patch will consider all above things, right?
If your patch can be consider that, this patch can based on your patchset. thanks.

quoted