Re: [PATCH v18 04/19] EDAC: Add memory repair control feature

[Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>]

On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 04:01:59PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> Ok. To me the fact it's not a single write was relevant. Seems not
> in your mental model of how this works.  For me a single write
> that you cannot query back is fine, setting lots of parameters and
> being unable to query any of them less so.  I guess you disagree.

Why can't you query it back?

grep -r . /sysfs/dir/

All files' values have been previously set and should still be there on
a read, I'd strongly hope. Your ->read routines should give the values back.

> In interests of progress I'm not going to argue further. No one is
> going to use this interface by hand anyway so the lost of useability
> I'm seeing doesn't matter a lot.

I had the suspicion that this user interface is not really going to be used by
a user but by a tool. But then if you don't have a tool, you're lost.

This is one of the reasons why you can control ftrace directly on the shell
too - without a tool. This is very useful in certain cases where you cannot
run some userspace tools.

> In at least the CXL case I'm fairly sure most of them are not discoverable.
> Until you see errors you have no idea what the memory topology is.

Ok.

> For that you'd need to have a path to read back what happened.

So how is this scrubbing going to work? You get an error, you parse it for all
the attributes and you go and write those attributes into the scrub interface
and it starts scrubbing?

But then why do you even need the interface at all?

Why can't the kernel automatically collect all those attributes and start the
scrubbing automatically - no need for any user interaction...?

So why do you *actually* even need user interaction here and why can't the
kernel be smart enough to start the scrub automatically?

> Ok. Then can we just drop the range discoverability entirely or we go with
> your suggestion and do not support read back of what has been
> requested but instead have the reads return a range if known or "" /
> return -EONOTSUPP if simply not known?

Probably.

> I can live with that though to me we are heading in the direction of
> a less intuitive interface to save a small number of additional files.

This is not the point. I already alluded to this earlier - we're talking about
a user visible interface which, once it goes out, it is cast in stone forever.

So those files better have a good reason to exist...

And if we're not sure yet, we can upstream only those which are fine now and
then continue discussing the rest.

HTH.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette