Hello. My team had independently started to make a change similar to this
before realizing that someone had already taken a stab at it. It is highly
desirable in my mind to have an improved handling of Advisory Errors in
the upstream kernel. Is there anything we can do to help move this effort
along? Perhaps testing? We have a decent variety of system configurations &
are able to inject various kinds of errors via special devices/commands etc.

Thanks,
-Matt

Hi Matthew,

Feel free to take it over if you are interested. Maintainer didn't respond to this series, perhaps he expects some improvement in the series.

Thanks
Zhenzhong

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matthew W Carlis <mattc@purestorage.com>
>Subject: [PATCH v5 0/2] PCI/AER: Handle Advisory Non-Fatal error
>
>Hello. My team had independently started to make a change similar to this
>before realizing that someone had already taken a stab at it. It is highly
>desirable in my mind to have an improved handling of Advisory Errors in
>the upstream kernel. Is there anything we can do to help move this effort
>along? Perhaps testing? We have a decent variety of system configurations &
>are able to inject various kinds of errors via special devices/commands etc.
>
>Thanks,
>-Matt

On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 01:45:30AM +0000, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
> 
> Feel free to take it over if you are interested. Maintainer didn't
> respond to this series, perhaps he expects some improvement in the
> series.

I'm terribly sorry, this is my fault.  It just fell off my list for no
good reason.  Matthew, if you are able to test and/or provide a
Reviewed-by, that would be the best thing you can do to move this
forward (although neither is actually necessary).

Bjorn

> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Matthew W Carlis <mattc@purestorage.com>
> >Subject: [PATCH v5 0/2] PCI/AER: Handle Advisory Non-Fatal error
> >
> >Hello. My team had independently started to make a change similar to this
> >before realizing that someone had already taken a stab at it. It is highly
> >desirable in my mind to have an improved handling of Advisory Errors in
> >the upstream kernel. Is there anything we can do to help move this effort
> >along? Perhaps testing? We have a decent variety of system configurations &
> >are able to inject various kinds of errors via special devices/commands etc.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >-Matt

On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 11:51:12 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote 
> Matthew, if you are able to test and/or provide a Reviewed-by, that would
> be the best thing you can do to move this forward ...

I spent some time looking at the patch thinking about it a little
more carefully. The only thing I don't really like in this revision
of the patch is the logging for "may cause Advisory". Example below
from "[PATCH v5 2/2] PCI/AER: Print UNCOR_STATUS bits that might be ANFE".

AER: Correctable error message received from 0000:b7:02.0
PCIe Bus Error: severity=Correctable, type=Transaction Layer, (Receiver ID)
  device [8086:0db0] error status/mask=00002000/00000000
   [13] NonFatalErr
  Uncorrectable errors that may cause Advisory Non-Fatal:
   [12] TLP

I don't think we really need to log the UE caused by ANF any differently
than any other UE & in fact I would prefer not to. In my mind we should log all
the UE status bits via the same format as before. Taking from example above,
in my mind it would be nice if the logging looked like this.

AER: Correctable error message received from 0000:b7:02.0
PCIe Bus Error: severity=Correctable, type=Transaction Layer, (Receiver ID)
  device [8086:0db0] error status/mask=00002000/00000000
   [13] NonFatalErr
PCIe Bus Error: severity=Uncorrectable (Non-Fatal), type=Transaction Layer
   [12] TLP

If there was only one error (that triggered ANF handling) then we would
know that the Non-Fatal UE was what triggered the NonFatalErr. If some other
Non-Fatal errors are happening at the same time then it doesn't really matter
which was sent via ERR_COR vs ERR_NONFATAL since we would also know from Root
Error Status that we had received at least one of each message type. The
objective in my mind being to free up header-logs & log status details without
making error the recovery worse.

Does this sound reasonable or unreasonable? I can update the patch-set &
re-submit if 'reasonable'.

Cheers!
-Matt

On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 11:51:12 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote 
> I'm terribly sorry, this is my fault.  It just fell off my list for no
> good reason.  Matthew, if you are able to test and/or provide a
> Reviewed-by, that would be the best thing you can do to move this
> forward (although neither is actually necessary).

It seems for pci there is always a massive list of things in flight..
Difficult for any mortal to keep up with. We pulled the patch into our
kernel & have started testing it. I'll sync-up with my team internally to
see exactly what the plan is & how long we think it will take.

Cheers!
-Matt

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matthew W Carlis <mattc@purestorage.com>
>Subject: [PATCH v5 0/2] PCI/AER: Handle Advisory Non-Fatal error
>
>On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 11:51:12 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote
>> I'm terribly sorry, this is my fault.  It just fell off my list for no
>> good reason.  Matthew, if you are able to test and/or provide a
>> Reviewed-by, that would be the best thing you can do to move this
>> forward (although neither is actually necessary).
>
>It seems for pci there is always a massive list of things in flight..
>Difficult for any mortal to keep up with.

Fully agree, never mind, Bjorn.

BRs,
Zhenzhong