[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:53:20 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...nel.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [0/10] Use 64bit x86 machine check code for 32bit too
v2
Applied to -tip as x86/unify-mce.
Thanks!
-hpa
Andi Kleen wrote:
> This patchkit uses the 64bit machine check code which is better in many
> ways on 32bit x86 too. This is also the basis for some future machine
> check work.
>
> The 64bit machine check code is in many ways much better than
> the 32bit machine check code: it is more specification compliant,
> is cleaner, only has a single code base versus one per CPU,
> has better infrastructure for recovery, has a cleaner way to communicate
> with user space etc. etc.
>
> It requires testing especially on older systems (on newer
> ones it should be already tested well in 64bit systems).
>
> The patchkit contains several parts:
> - It ports over a few needed quirks (for older Intel and older
> AMD CPUs) to the 64bit kernel.
> - It changes the 64bit code to be 32bit clean in its data structures
> (mostly just unsigned long -> u64 where needed)
> - It drops some unused functionality that cannot be easily implemented on 32bit
> and didn't seem worth ifdefing
>
> Tested by doing some software level error injection on a few
> different machines
>
> I request this code is merged into the appropiate tree for linux-next
> for wider testing. It's not .27 ready, but hopefully .28, but it requires
> wider exposure now.
>
> v2: Fix compilation problems noted by hpa in some configurations
> Fix strict_strtoul() conversion
>
> -Andi
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists