Re: [PATCH] x86/mce/amd: Fix inverted interrupt enablement during storm handling

On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 6:39 AM Yazen Ghannam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2026 at 03:52:41PM -0700, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 07, 2026 at 04:26:59PM -0600, Jasjeet Rangi wrote:
> > > mce_amd_handle_storm() currently does the opposite of what storm
> > > handling needs: it enables threshold interrupts when a storm is detected
> > > and disables them when the storm subsides.
> >
> > the subside path:
> >
> > printk_deferred(KERN_NOTICE "CPU%d BANK%d CMCI storm subsided\n", smp_processor_id(), mce->bank);
> > mce_handle_storm(mce->bank, false);
> > |->mce_amd_handle_storm(bank, on)
> > |-> threshold_restart_bank(bank, on);
> > |-> tr.b->interrupt_enable = false;
> >
> > while that commit Fixes: 5c4663ed1eac ("x86/mce: Handle AMD threshold
> > interrupt storms") says:
> >
> >     Rather, disable the interrupt on the corresponding CPU and bank.
> >     Re-enable back the interrupts if enough consecutive polls of the bank show no
> >     corrected errors (30, as programmed by Intel).
> >
> > Yap, I see it.
> >
> > I'm not sure about your approach to change the bool meaning - "on" is fine at
> > a first glance and this fix should be minimal so that it is more easily
> > backportable to stable - but yap, looks like we're doing it wrong.
> >
>
> I agree the fix should be minimal, but I like having more explicit
> variable names for clarity. Maybe split this patch in two? First is the
> minimal fix to backport, and second is the variable renaming.
>
> In any case, this looks good to me.
>
> Reviewed-by: Yazen Ghannam <[email protected]>
>
> Thanks,
> Yazen

I agree with Yazen that having the variable names is more clear. I will
split it into 2 patches in the next iteration. If we later decide we don't
want the variable rename then we can drop that patch.

Thanks,
Jasjeet