[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160209233857.GA24348@agluck-desk.sc.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 15:38:57 -0800
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, elliott@....com,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 4/4] x86: Create a new synthetic cpu capability for
machine check recovery
> > + if (mca_cfg.recovery || (mca_cfg.ser &&
> > + !strncmp(c->x86_model_id, "Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7-", 24)))
>
> Eeww, a model string check :-(
>
> Lemme guess: those E7s can't be represented by a range of
> model/steppings, can they?
We use the same model number for E5 and E7 series. E.g. 63 for Haswell.
The model_id string seems to be the only way to tell ahead of time
whether you will get a recoverable machine check or die when you
touch uncorrected memory.
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists