Re: 2.6.0-test4 and hardware reports a non fatal incident
From: Dave Jones (davej_at_redhat.com)
Date: 08/30/03
- Previous message: Nick Piggin: "Re: [FS Benchmark] reiser4 vs. reiserfs (3.6)"
- In reply to: Matt Gibson: "Re: 2.6.0-test4 and hardware reports a non fatal incident"
- Next in thread: Matt Gibson: "Re: 2.6.0-test4 and hardware reports a non fatal incident"
- Reply: Matt Gibson: "Re: 2.6.0-test4 and hardware reports a non fatal incident"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 14:35:09 +0100 To: Matt Gibson <gothick@gothick.org.uk>
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 01:44:56PM +0100, Matt Gibson wrote:
> > for (i=1; i<nr_mce_banks; i++) {
> >
> > Check out the "for". Or am I reading this wrong?
>
> Having checked back, this was changed between test-2 and test-3. The
> checking code in k7_machine_check() still loops from 0 rather than 1. I
> think this may be leading to false reporting of problems, which may be why I
> and Tomasz are seeing these MCE messages on our Athlons.
When it was i=0 people were seeing false positives. Starting from 1
reduces that.
> Anyone who knows more about this stuff care to comment? Is someone looking
> after MCE at the moment? I couldn't find out much info on it.
in the past, Alan and myself took care of i386, Andi Kleen did AMD64.
Dave
-- Dave Jones http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: Nick Piggin: "Re: [FS Benchmark] reiser4 vs. reiserfs (3.6)"
- In reply to: Matt Gibson: "Re: 2.6.0-test4 and hardware reports a non fatal incident"
- Next in thread: Matt Gibson: "Re: 2.6.0-test4 and hardware reports a non fatal incident"
- Reply: Matt Gibson: "Re: 2.6.0-test4 and hardware reports a non fatal incident"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]