On Thursday 11 October 2007 18:50:12 Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Christoph Egger wrote:
> > On Thursday 11 October 2007 16:55:36 Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MCA) || !cpu_has(c,
> > > > > > X86_FEATURE_MCE)) { + pri
> So when I change the above code snippet to:
>
> + if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MCE)) {
> + printk(KERN_INFO "CPU%i: No machine check support available\n",
> + smp_processor_id());
> + return;
>
> Would this make the whole patch acceptable then?
I
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 06:50:12PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Christoph Egger wrote:
> > On Thursday 11 October 2007 16:55:36 Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MCA) || !cpu_has(c,
> > > > > > X86_FEATURE_MCE)) {
> > > >
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Christoph Egger wrote:
> On Thursday 11 October 2007 16:55:36 Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MCA) || !cpu_has(c,
> > > > > X86_FEATURE_MCE)) {
> > > > > + printk(KERN_INFO "CPU%i: No machine check support
> > > > > a
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:55:36 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Christoph Egger wrote:
>
> > On Thursday 11 October 2007 15:51:49 Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > > > MCG_CAP never reports a negative count of ava
On Thursday 11 October 2007 16:55:36 Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Christoph Egger wrote:
> > On Thursday 11 October 2007 15:51:49 Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > > > MCG_CAP never reports a negative count of available error-reporting
> > >
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Christoph Egger wrote:
> On Thursday 11 October 2007 15:51:49 Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > > MCG_CAP never reports a negative count of available error-reporting
> > > banks. Therefore, make nr_mce_banks unsigned.
> > > Check for MCA/M
On Thursday 11 October 2007 15:51:49 Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > MCG_CAP never reports a negative count of available error-reporting
> > banks. Therefore, make nr_mce_banks unsigned.
> > Check for MCA/MCE feature bits as early as possible.
> >
> > +
> > +
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> MCG_CAP never reports a negative count of available error-reporting banks.
> Therefore, make nr_mce_banks unsigned.
> Check for MCA/MCE feature bits as early as possible.
> +
> + if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MCA) || !cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MCE)) {
> +
MCG_CAP never reports a negative count of available error-reporting banks.
Therefore, make nr_mce_banks unsigned.
Check for MCA/MCE feature bits as early as possible.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Egger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/
10 matches
Mail list logo