RE: [PATCH 2.6.0test5: 2 of 3] MCA/TLB recovery

From: Luck, Tony <tony.luck_at_intel.com>
Date: 2003-10-09 07:44:04
>   Tony> +/* Bitmasks of implemented registers */
>   Tony> +static u64 arbits[2] = { 0x11117f2f00ffUL, 0x7UL };
>   Tony> +static u64 crbits[2] = { 0x3fb0107UL, 0x307ffUL };
> 
> Shouldn't these masks be obtained from PAL?

You are right ... PAL_REGISTER_INFO returns this information (I
had forgotten that it existed).

>   Tony> +static u64 brbits[1] = { 0xffUL };
>   Tony> +static u64 rrbits[1] = { 0xffUL };
> 
> These look a bit weird to me (since they're architected), but I guess
> it's your call...

This just fell out of sharing the same code to print the register
values ... it might look less weird if I fix the arbits/crbits code
to use PAL_REGISTER_INFO.

Overall this part of the patch is mostly fluff.  Long term the
right thing to do is remove all these printk()s from the kernel
and leave paring of SAL error records to some user mode code (using
some mechanism like Bjorn did in 2.4).

Any comments on parts 1 & 3???

-Tony
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Wed Oct 8 17:44:27 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:19 EST