Hi, Matthias. > I think error handling needs to be extended to not only > recover from errors and kill for example the concerned > application. Increasing chip density will increase the > soft error rate, so it also becomes important to determinate > if a error is soft (caused for example by cosmic rays) > or if it is a true HW component failure requiring a > replacement. Surely, it is very important to specify where target error comes from. I do not want to carry out advice to replace the component, which working correctly. > Obviously a lot of the error handling will be very > platform dependant, but I think we should be able to come up > with a common frame set. What do you think ? Of course, I agree with a common frame set. In the case of platform premising IPF, I think it is better to regard the Intel's Chipset as the de facto standard. Thanks. ------ H.Seto <seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com> - 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.htmlReceived on Fri Oct 31 00:14:12 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:20 EST