Re: [patch] MCA recovery: Montecito support

From: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi_at_jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: 2006-10-26 10:21:34
Russ Anderson wrote:
> I reworked that routine to look at all the valid cache target identifiers
> and use the one with the lowest cache level.  
> 
> I've opened a Quad issue to get clarification from Intel as to 
> which target identifier triggered the MCA if there are multiple
> cache checks with valid target identifiers.  
> 
> This patch also leaves mca.c unchanged.  I'll treat that as a seperate
> patch if needed.

Looks good.

But I have one more question (for intel possibly):
- If identifiers in cache_check and bus_check are different,
   the cache's always takes priority and the bus's will be ignored.
   Are there any opposite case, such as a case of error log that have
   corrected cache_checks with ignorable identifiers and an uncorrected
   bus_check with significant identifier?

I guess if both are significant it would be separated double MCA,
or should be reset by SAL/platform.


Thanks,
H.Seto

-
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 Thu Oct 26 10:19:15 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-10-26 10:19:27 EST