Resending the patch: Re: 2.6: PATCH for multiple EEH bugs

[linas at austin.ibm.com]

OK,

Fifth time's a charm ...

base64 encoding the patch helps prevent the mail gateways from mangling it,
but then its too big for the mailing list manager.  You can ftp the patch

http://www-124.ibm.com/linux/patches/?patch_id=1344

To repeat the original note:

Patch for multiple EEH-related bugs.  Please review this patch,
& if appropriate, please apply.  It should apply cleanly to
the current ameslab tree (Feb 03 2004  2.6.2-rc3).

This patch fixes multiple EEH-related bugs:

-- Fixes the eeh_check_failure() usage in an interrupt context.
   This routine is now safe to use in an interrupt. The fix was to
   build a cache of IO addresses and check that, instead of using
   the pci routines.
-- Merges in Olof Johansson's sizeof patch when checking for failure
-- Adds EEH tests to array/string reads
-- Fixes bugs with address resolution (some i/o addresses were handled
   incorrectly, resulting in EEH errors slipping by undetected.)
-- Adds EEH support to the PCI Hotplug system (so that devices that
   get added/removed get properly registered with the EEH subsystem.)
-- Fixes improper use of /proc filesystem.
-- Adds some misc statistics.

Please note that the EEH subsystem will be undergoing a major revision
in the not-to-distant future; this patch is a 'stopgap' to address the
immediate concerns/issues until that time.

--linas


On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 02:28:53PM -0600, linas at austin.ibm.com wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 10:52:11PM -0600, olof at austin.ibm.com wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 linas at austin.ibm.com wrote:
> >
> > > Patch for multiple EEH-related bugs.  Please review this patch,
> > > & if appropriate, please apply.  It should apply cleanly to
> > > the current ameslab tree (Feb 03 2004  2.6.2-rc3).
> >
> > I have patch failures in eeh.c, pci.c and rpaphp_core.c. Are you sure you
> > made the diff against a current ameslab tree?
>
> Right tree, bad email attachment.
>
> I don't know how it happened, but what I sent out had some trailing
> whitespace whacked. The attached patch should not have this problem.

** Sent via the linuxppc64-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/