On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 11:30:58AM +0200, Karolina Stolarek wrote: > On 01/05/2025 23:43, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > I'm (finally) getting back to this series because it really needs to > > make v6.16. > > > > It would definitely be nice to determine the log level once instead of > > several times, but I'm not sure I like passing "level" through the > > whole chain because it seems like a lot of change to get that benefit: > > > > - it changes the prototype for __aer_print_error(), > > aer_print_error(), and aer_process_err_devices() > > > > - it removes the info->severity test from aer_print_error(), but > > leaves it in __aer_print_error() and pci_print_aer(), which need > > it for other reasons > > > > All these functions take a pointer to a struct aer_err_info, and if we > > want to compute the log level once, maybe we could stash the result in > > struct aer_err_info, similar to what we did with ratelimited[] here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250321015806.954866-7-pandoh@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > I think that would be a good compromise between these two approaches. > > > I'm rebasing this series to v6.15-rc1 and will post a v6 proposal > > soon. > > Do you plan to include changes suggested in the thread or just rebase the > series? Yes. > Also, it's still unclear to me how to approach the sysfs patch, both in the > context of the ratelimit refactor (which, some of it, is in the next > tree)[1] and the value that should be exposed in the attribute. We have > control only over the burst but not the interval. When we deal with high > rates of errors, we may want to increase the time window to see if the flood > is out of ordinary or is it constant. Unclear to me, too. Might have to revisit that. > [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/all/b0883f20-c337-40bb-b564-c535a162bf54@paulmck-laptop/ >
