[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F1933C278@ORSMSX104.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 13:26:37 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
Christoph Egger <Christoph.Egger@....com>,
"Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@...el.com>
CC: IanCampbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Dugger, Donald D" <donald.d.dugger@...el.com>,
"Shan, Haitao" <haitao.shan@...el.com>,
"Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
"Li, Susie" <susie.li@...el.com>,
"Auld, Will" <will.auld@...el.com>,
"Zhang, Xiantao" <xiantao.zhang@...el.com>,
"Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@...el.com>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
KeirFraser <keir@....org>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [xen vMCE RFC V0.2] xen vMCE design
> I'm not convinced of the need, and would prefer aiming at a
> shared implementation unless issues arise that make this
> impossible.
It does sound odd. Yes, Intel and AMD have differences around CMCI ... but we are never
going to send a CMCI to a guest (there is no point, it can't do anything useful with the
information, it may do something pointlessly stupid like stop using a guest physical page).
The only reason I suggested making MCG_CAP pretend that CMCI was supported was a
small optimization ... if a Linux guest sees that CMCI is supported, it will not poll the machine
check banks looking for corrected errors.
-Tony
--
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