Christoph Egger
2007-Aug-21 13:31 UTC
[Xen-devel] [PATCH] 2/3: MCA/MCE correctable error handling
This is patch 2/3. Signed-off-by: Christoph Egger <Christoph.Egger@amd.com> -- AMD Saxony, Dresden, Germany Operating System Research Center Legal Information: AMD Saxony Limited Liability Company & Co. KG Sitz (Geschäftsanschrift): Wilschdorfer Landstr. 101, 01109 Dresden, Deutschland Registergericht Dresden: HRA 4896 vertretungsberechtigter Komplementär: AMD Saxony LLC (Sitz Wilmington, Delaware, USA) Geschäftsführer der AMD Saxony LLC: Dr. Hans-R. Deppe, Thomas McCoy _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Jan Beulich
2007-Aug-21 15:53 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] 2/3: MCA/MCE correctable error handling
>+} __attribute__((packed));I think it was a general agreement that it is not a good idea (non-portable to non-GNU compilers) to put things like this in public headers. I think by properly ordering things you can get away without this (and almost without padding).>+struct mcinfo_global { >... >+ uint16_t mc_socketid; >+ uint16_t mc_coreid; >+ uint16_t mc_vcpu_id;Unless mc_vcpu_id is intended for that purpose, this neglects hyperthreading (I know, AMD doesn''t use this, but the interface should be vendor neutral). If mc_vcpu_id is meant for that purpose, its naming is ambiguous. If mc_vcpu_id is meant as a vcpuid, then ordering things os that mc_domid and mc_vcpu_id are contiguous would seem more natural (making eventual examination in raw memory less confusing).>+/* sizeof(struct mcinfo_global) + 6 * sizeof(struct mcinfo_bank) == 200. >+ * This is enough space to store mc information of up to six banks. >+ */ >+#define MCINFO_MAXSIZE (204 - sizeof(uint32_t))Why don''t you use the sizeof()-s from the description? If this is really needed for some reason, then having 200 in the description and 204 in the macro is at least confusing...> /* Frame containing list of mfns containing list of mfns containing p2m. */ > xen_pfn_t pfn_to_mfn_frame_list_list; > unsigned long nmi_reason; >+ struct arch_mc_info mc_info; /* machine check information */ > uint64_t pad[32]; > };Are you sure it is appropriate to add a member here without reducing the padding member? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Christoph Egger
2007-Aug-22 08:47 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] 2/3: MCA/MCE correctable error handling
On Tuesday 21 August 2007 17:53:45 Jan Beulich wrote:> >+} __attribute__((packed)); > > I think it was a general agreement that it is not a good idea (non-portable > to non-GNU compilers) to put things like this in public headers. I think by > properly ordering things you can get away without this (and almost without > padding).Oh, you''re right. I should use #pragma pack(1) instead. Is this fine with you?> > >+struct mcinfo_global { > >... > >+ uint16_t mc_socketid; > >+ uint16_t mc_coreid; > >+ uint16_t mc_vcpu_id; > > Unless mc_vcpu_id is intended for that purpose, this neglects > hyperthreading (I know, AMD doesn''t use this, but the interface should be > vendor neutral). > > If mc_vcpu_id is meant for that purpose, its naming is ambiguous. > > If mc_vcpu_id is meant as a vcpuid, then ordering things os that mc_domid > and mc_vcpu_id are contiguous would seem more natural (making eventual > examination in raw memory less confusing).mc_coreid is the physical core that reported the machine check information. mc_socketid is the physical socket the physical core is in. This is useful to find all other affected physical cores, when an error in the L3-Cache is reported that is shared over all cores in the chip. mc_vcpu_id is the id of the active vcpu for the domain, that reported the machine check information. Inside Xen, this is current->vcpu_id. mc_vcpu_id is needed to deal properly with the upcoming NUMA support my collegue is working on.> >+/* sizeof(struct mcinfo_global) + 6 * sizeof(struct mcinfo_bank) == 200. > >+ * This is enough space to store mc information of up to six banks. > >+ */ > >+#define MCINFO_MAXSIZE (204 - sizeof(uint32_t)) > > Why don''t you use the sizeof()-s from the description? If this is really > needed for some reason, then having 200 in the description and 204 in the > macro is at least confusing...MCINFO_MAXSIZE is the size for the content of the mi_data array. MCINFO_MAXSIZE + sizeof(mi_nentries) == 204. That is where is number comes from.> > /* Frame containing list of mfns containing list of mfns containing > > p2m. */ xen_pfn_t pfn_to_mfn_frame_list_list; > > unsigned long nmi_reason; > >+ struct arch_mc_info mc_info; /* machine check information */ > > uint64_t pad[32]; > > }; > > Are you sure it is appropriate to add a member here without reducing the > padding member?You want me to replace "uint64_t pad[32];" with "uint32_t pad[13];" ? -- AMD Saxony, Dresden, Germany Operating System Research Center Legal Information: AMD Saxony Limited Liability Company & Co. KG Sitz (Geschäftsanschrift): Wilschdorfer Landstr. 101, 01109 Dresden, Deutschland Registergericht Dresden: HRA 4896 vertretungsberechtigter Komplementär: AMD Saxony LLC (Sitz Wilmington, Delaware, USA) Geschäftsführer der AMD Saxony LLC: Dr. Hans-R. Deppe, Thomas McCoy _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Jan Beulich
2007-Aug-22 10:01 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] 2/3: MCA/MCE correctable error handling
>>> "Christoph Egger" <Christoph.Egger@amd.com> 22.08.07 10:47 >>> >On Tuesday 21 August 2007 17:53:45 Jan Beulich wrote: >> >+} __attribute__((packed)); >> >> I think it was a general agreement that it is not a good idea (non-portable >> to non-GNU compilers) to put things like this in public headers. I think by >> properly ordering things you can get away without this (and almost without >> padding). > >Oh, you''re right. I should use #pragma pack(1) instead. >Is this fine with you?I''m afraid that wouldn''t work with the compat mode header generation, as the original use of #pragma pack(push, ...) was banned for (Sun) compatibility reasons. Consequently, I believe the only way of doing this properly is to avoid depending on compiler behavior by arranging things appropriately (including padding members if needed) and avoiding #pragma pack() altogether.>> >> >+struct mcinfo_global { >> >... >> >+ uint16_t mc_socketid; >> >+ uint16_t mc_coreid; >> >+ uint16_t mc_vcpu_id; >> >> Unless mc_vcpu_id is intended for that purpose, this neglects >> hyperthreading (I know, AMD doesn''t use this, but the interface should be >> vendor neutral). >> >> If mc_vcpu_id is meant for that purpose, its naming is ambiguous. >> >> If mc_vcpu_id is meant as a vcpuid, then ordering things os that mc_domid >> and mc_vcpu_id are contiguous would seem more natural (making eventual >> examination in raw memory less confusing). > >mc_coreid is the physical core that reported the machine check information. >mc_socketid is the physical socket the physical core is in. This is useful >to find all other affected physical cores, when an error in the L3-Cache is >reported that is shared over all cores in the chip. > >mc_vcpu_id is the id of the active vcpu for the domain, that reported the >machine check information. Inside Xen, this is current->vcpu_id. >mc_vcpu_id is needed to deal properly with the upcoming NUMA support >my collegue is working on.Okay, but then you''re really lacking a thread id here, for being filled by respective Intel code (AMD code would set this to zero).>> >+/* sizeof(struct mcinfo_global) + 6 * sizeof(struct mcinfo_bank) == 200. >> >+ * This is enough space to store mc information of up to six banks. >> >+ */ >> >+#define MCINFO_MAXSIZE (204 - sizeof(uint32_t)) >> >> Why don''t you use the sizeof()-s from the description? If this is really >> needed for some reason, then having 200 in the description and 204 in the >> macro is at least confusing... > >MCINFO_MAXSIZE is the size for the content of the mi_data array. >MCINFO_MAXSIZE + sizeof(mi_nentries) == 204. That is where is number comes >from.I concluded that, but pointed out that seeing two different numbers made me think of why this is so, whereas identical numbers would have avoided that (and will likely keep others from asking later, too). Also, you don''t say what was the reason for you to use constants instead of sizeof() here.>> > /* Frame containing list of mfns containing list of mfns containing >> > p2m. */ xen_pfn_t pfn_to_mfn_frame_list_list; >> > unsigned long nmi_reason; >> >+ struct arch_mc_info mc_info; /* machine check information */ >> > uint64_t pad[32]; >> > }; >> >> Are you sure it is appropriate to add a member here without reducing the >> padding member? > >You want me to replace "uint64_t pad[32];" with "uint32_t pad[13];" ?It would be my understanding that that''s the right thing to do (assuming you calculated the numbers correctly), but I''d rely on Keir to give a final word on this. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Christoph Egger
2007-Aug-22 15:47 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] 2/3: MCA/MCE correctable error handling
I fixed all this in my code and will re-submit the new patch. Christoph On Wednesday 22 August 2007 12:01:26 Jan Beulich wrote:> >>> "Christoph Egger" <Christoph.Egger@amd.com> 22.08.07 10:47 >>> > > > >On Tuesday 21 August 2007 17:53:45 Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >+} __attribute__((packed)); > >> > >> I think it was a general agreement that it is not a good idea > >> (non-portable to non-GNU compilers) to put things like this in public > >> headers. I think by properly ordering things you can get away without > >> this (and almost without padding). > > > >Oh, you''re right. I should use #pragma pack(1) instead. > >Is this fine with you? > > I''m afraid that wouldn''t work with the compat mode header generation, as > the original use of #pragma pack(push, ...) was banned for (Sun) > compatibility reasons. Consequently, I believe the only way of doing this > properly is to avoid depending on compiler behavior by arranging things > appropriately (including padding members if needed) and avoiding #pragma > pack() altogether. > > >> >+struct mcinfo_global { > >> >... > >> >+ uint16_t mc_socketid; > >> >+ uint16_t mc_coreid; > >> >+ uint16_t mc_vcpu_id; > >> > >> Unless mc_vcpu_id is intended for that purpose, this neglects > >> hyperthreading (I know, AMD doesn''t use this, but the interface should > >> be vendor neutral). > >> > >> If mc_vcpu_id is meant for that purpose, its naming is ambiguous. > >> > >> If mc_vcpu_id is meant as a vcpuid, then ordering things os that > >> mc_domid and mc_vcpu_id are contiguous would seem more natural (making > >> eventual examination in raw memory less confusing). > > > >mc_coreid is the physical core that reported the machine check > > information. mc_socketid is the physical socket the physical core is in. > > This is useful to find all other affected physical cores, when an error > > in the L3-Cache is reported that is shared over all cores in the chip. > > > >mc_vcpu_id is the id of the active vcpu for the domain, that reported the > >machine check information. Inside Xen, this is current->vcpu_id. > >mc_vcpu_id is needed to deal properly with the upcoming NUMA support > >my collegue is working on. > > Okay, but then you''re really lacking a thread id here, for being filled by > respective Intel code (AMD code would set this to zero). > > >> >+/* sizeof(struct mcinfo_global) + 6 * sizeof(struct mcinfo_bank) => >> > 200. + * This is enough space to store mc information of up to six > >> > banks. + */ > >> >+#define MCINFO_MAXSIZE (204 - sizeof(uint32_t)) > >> > >> Why don''t you use the sizeof()-s from the description? If this is really > >> needed for some reason, then having 200 in the description and 204 in > >> the macro is at least confusing... > > > >MCINFO_MAXSIZE is the size for the content of the mi_data array. > >MCINFO_MAXSIZE + sizeof(mi_nentries) == 204. That is where is number comes > >from. > > I concluded that, but pointed out that seeing two different numbers made > me think of why this is so, whereas identical numbers would have avoided > that (and will likely keep others from asking later, too). > > Also, you don''t say what was the reason for you to use constants instead > of sizeof() here. > > >> > /* Frame containing list of mfns containing list of mfns > >> > containing p2m. */ xen_pfn_t pfn_to_mfn_frame_list_list; > >> > unsigned long nmi_reason; > >> >+ struct arch_mc_info mc_info; /* machine check information */ > >> > uint64_t pad[32]; > >> > }; > >> > >> Are you sure it is appropriate to add a member here without reducing the > >> padding member? > > > >You want me to replace "uint64_t pad[32];" with "uint32_t pad[13];" ? > > It would be my understanding that that''s the right thing to do (assuming > you calculated the numbers correctly), but I''d rely on Keir to give a final > word on this. > > Jan-- AMD Saxony, Dresden, Germany Operating System Research Center Legal Information: AMD Saxony Limited Liability Company & Co. KG Sitz (Geschäftsanschrift): Wilschdorfer Landstr. 101, 01109 Dresden, Deutschland Registergericht Dresden: HRA 4896 vertretungsberechtigter Komplementär: AMD Saxony LLC (Sitz Wilmington, Delaware, USA) Geschäftsführer der AMD Saxony LLC: Dr. Hans-R. Deppe, Thomas McCoy _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Keir Fraser
2007-Aug-22 16:13 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] 2/3: MCA/MCE correctable error handling
I''m not sure you should use shared_info at all. This interface should be low-rate enough that you can add a sysctl (assuming this info is applicable for dom0 only, which it looks to be). Actually, probably a platform_op rather than a sysctl... -- Keir On 22/8/07 16:47, "Christoph Egger" <Christoph.Egger@amd.com> wrote:> > I fixed all this in my code and will re-submit the new patch. > > Christoph > > > > On Wednesday 22 August 2007 12:01:26 Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> "Christoph Egger" <Christoph.Egger@amd.com> 22.08.07 10:47 >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday 21 August 2007 17:53:45 Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> +} __attribute__((packed)); >>>> >>>> I think it was a general agreement that it is not a good idea >>>> (non-portable to non-GNU compilers) to put things like this in public >>>> headers. I think by properly ordering things you can get away without >>>> this (and almost without padding). >>> >>> Oh, you''re right. I should use #pragma pack(1) instead. >>> Is this fine with you? >> >> I''m afraid that wouldn''t work with the compat mode header generation, as >> the original use of #pragma pack(push, ...) was banned for (Sun) >> compatibility reasons. Consequently, I believe the only way of doing this >> properly is to avoid depending on compiler behavior by arranging things >> appropriately (including padding members if needed) and avoiding #pragma >> pack() altogether. >> >>>>> +struct mcinfo_global { >>>>> ... >>>>> + uint16_t mc_socketid; >>>>> + uint16_t mc_coreid; >>>>> + uint16_t mc_vcpu_id; >>>> >>>> Unless mc_vcpu_id is intended for that purpose, this neglects >>>> hyperthreading (I know, AMD doesn''t use this, but the interface should >>>> be vendor neutral). >>>> >>>> If mc_vcpu_id is meant for that purpose, its naming is ambiguous. >>>> >>>> If mc_vcpu_id is meant as a vcpuid, then ordering things os that >>>> mc_domid and mc_vcpu_id are contiguous would seem more natural (making >>>> eventual examination in raw memory less confusing). >>> >>> mc_coreid is the physical core that reported the machine check >>> information. mc_socketid is the physical socket the physical core is in. >>> This is useful to find all other affected physical cores, when an error >>> in the L3-Cache is reported that is shared over all cores in the chip. >>> >>> mc_vcpu_id is the id of the active vcpu for the domain, that reported the >>> machine check information. Inside Xen, this is current->vcpu_id. >>> mc_vcpu_id is needed to deal properly with the upcoming NUMA support >>> my collegue is working on. >> >> Okay, but then you''re really lacking a thread id here, for being filled by >> respective Intel code (AMD code would set this to zero). >> >>>>> +/* sizeof(struct mcinfo_global) + 6 * sizeof(struct mcinfo_bank) =>>>>> 200. + * This is enough space to store mc information of up to six >>>>> banks. + */ >>>>> +#define MCINFO_MAXSIZE (204 - sizeof(uint32_t)) >>>> >>>> Why don''t you use the sizeof()-s from the description? If this is really >>>> needed for some reason, then having 200 in the description and 204 in >>>> the macro is at least confusing... >>> >>> MCINFO_MAXSIZE is the size for the content of the mi_data array. >>> MCINFO_MAXSIZE + sizeof(mi_nentries) == 204. That is where is number comes >>> from. >> >> I concluded that, but pointed out that seeing two different numbers made >> me think of why this is so, whereas identical numbers would have avoided >> that (and will likely keep others from asking later, too). >> >> Also, you don''t say what was the reason for you to use constants instead >> of sizeof() here. >> >>>>> /* Frame containing list of mfns containing list of mfns >>>>> containing p2m. */ xen_pfn_t pfn_to_mfn_frame_list_list; >>>>> unsigned long nmi_reason; >>>>> + struct arch_mc_info mc_info; /* machine check information */ >>>>> uint64_t pad[32]; >>>>> }; >>>> >>>> Are you sure it is appropriate to add a member here without reducing the >>>> padding member? >>> >>> You want me to replace "uint64_t pad[32];" with "uint32_t pad[13];" ? >> >> It would be my understanding that that''s the right thing to do (assuming >> you calculated the numbers correctly), but I''d rely on Keir to give a final >> word on this. >> >> Jan > >_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Christoph Egger
2007-Aug-23 07:07 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] 2/3: MCA/MCE correctable error handling
On Wednesday 22 August 2007 18:13:30 Keir Fraser wrote:> I''m not sure you should use shared_info at all. This interface should be > low-rate enough that you can add a sysctl (assuming this info is applicable > for dom0 only, which it looks to be).The polling service is dom0 only. Uncorrectable errors may also be reported to a DomU.> Actually, probably a platform_op rather than a sysctl...What you propose is to copy the MCA info from Xen to guest? The MCA info structure will be used for both correctable and uncorrectable error notification (as I said in my first patch 0/3 mail). I assumed you agreed on all this as is in the patches, since you did not object/comment when this was discussed on this list in the "MCA/MCE concept" topic (and also your questions in your patch 3/3 mail were discussed there). The purpose of this discussion was to find an agreement on how to proceed. Therefore, all what I expected from you were some questions/comments about implementation details and no design/concept questions. Christoph> -- Keir > > On 22/8/07 16:47, "Christoph Egger" <Christoph.Egger@amd.com> wrote: > > I fixed all this in my code and will re-submit the new patch. > > > > Christoph > > > > On Wednesday 22 August 2007 12:01:26 Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>>> "Christoph Egger" <Christoph.Egger@amd.com> 22.08.07 10:47 >>> > >>> > >>> On Tuesday 21 August 2007 17:53:45 Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>>> +} __attribute__((packed)); > >>>> > >>>> I think it was a general agreement that it is not a good idea > >>>> (non-portable to non-GNU compilers) to put things like this in public > >>>> headers. I think by properly ordering things you can get away without > >>>> this (and almost without padding). > >>> > >>> Oh, you''re right. I should use #pragma pack(1) instead. > >>> Is this fine with you? > >> > >> I''m afraid that wouldn''t work with the compat mode header generation, as > >> the original use of #pragma pack(push, ...) was banned for (Sun) > >> compatibility reasons. Consequently, I believe the only way of doing > >> this properly is to avoid depending on compiler behavior by arranging > >> things appropriately (including padding members if needed) and avoiding > >> #pragma pack() altogether. > >> > >>>>> +struct mcinfo_global { > >>>>> ... > >>>>> + uint16_t mc_socketid; > >>>>> + uint16_t mc_coreid; > >>>>> + uint16_t mc_vcpu_id; > >>>> > >>>> Unless mc_vcpu_id is intended for that purpose, this neglects > >>>> hyperthreading (I know, AMD doesn''t use this, but the interface should > >>>> be vendor neutral). > >>>> > >>>> If mc_vcpu_id is meant for that purpose, its naming is ambiguous. > >>>> > >>>> If mc_vcpu_id is meant as a vcpuid, then ordering things os that > >>>> mc_domid and mc_vcpu_id are contiguous would seem more natural (making > >>>> eventual examination in raw memory less confusing). > >>> > >>> mc_coreid is the physical core that reported the machine check > >>> information. mc_socketid is the physical socket the physical core is > >>> in. This is useful to find all other affected physical cores, when an > >>> error in the L3-Cache is reported that is shared over all cores in the > >>> chip. > >>> > >>> mc_vcpu_id is the id of the active vcpu for the domain, that reported > >>> the machine check information. Inside Xen, this is current->vcpu_id. > >>> mc_vcpu_id is needed to deal properly with the upcoming NUMA support my > >>> collegue is working on. > >> > >> Okay, but then you''re really lacking a thread id here, for being filled > >> by respective Intel code (AMD code would set this to zero). > >> > >>>>> +/* sizeof(struct mcinfo_global) + 6 * sizeof(struct mcinfo_bank) => >>>>> 200. + * This is enough space to store mc information of up to six > >>>>> banks. + */ > >>>>> +#define MCINFO_MAXSIZE (204 - sizeof(uint32_t)) > >>>> > >>>> Why don''t you use the sizeof()-s from the description? If this is > >>>> really needed for some reason, then having 200 in the description and > >>>> 204 in the macro is at least confusing... > >>> > >>> MCINFO_MAXSIZE is the size for the content of the mi_data array. > >>> MCINFO_MAXSIZE + sizeof(mi_nentries) == 204. That is where is number > >>> comes from. > >> > >> I concluded that, but pointed out that seeing two different numbers made > >> me think of why this is so, whereas identical numbers would have avoided > >> that (and will likely keep others from asking later, too). > >> > >> Also, you don''t say what was the reason for you to use constants instead > >> of sizeof() here. > >> > >>>>> /* Frame containing list of mfns containing list of mfns > >>>>> containing p2m. */ xen_pfn_t pfn_to_mfn_frame_list_list; > >>>>> unsigned long nmi_reason; > >>>>> + struct arch_mc_info mc_info; /* machine check information */ > >>>>> uint64_t pad[32]; > >>>>> }; > >>>> > >>>> Are you sure it is appropriate to add a member here without reducing > >>>> the padding member? > >>> > >>> You want me to replace "uint64_t pad[32];" with "uint32_t pad[13];" ? > >> > >> It would be my understanding that that''s the right thing to do (assuming > >> you calculated the numbers correctly), but I''d rely on Keir to give a > >> final word on this. > >> > >> Jan-- AMD Saxony, Dresden, Germany Operating System Research Center Legal Information: AMD Saxony Limited Liability Company & Co. KG Sitz (Geschäftsanschrift): Wilschdorfer Landstr. 101, 01109 Dresden, Deutschland Registergericht Dresden: HRA 4896 vertretungsberechtigter Komplementär: AMD Saxony LLC (Sitz Wilmington, Delaware, USA) Geschäftsführer der AMD Saxony LLC: Dr. Hans-R. Deppe, Thomas McCoy _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Christoph Egger
2007-Aug-23 09:23 UTC
[Xen-devel] [PATCH] resend 2/3: MCA/MCE correctable error handling
Yesterday I said, I will re-send this patch. Here is it. It incorporates feedback from Jan Beulich. Signed-off-by: Christoph Egger <Christoph.Egger@amd.com> -- AMD Saxony, Dresden, Germany Operating System Research Center Legal Information: AMD Saxony Limited Liability Company & Co. KG Sitz (Geschäftsanschrift): Wilschdorfer Landstr. 101, 01109 Dresden, Deutschland Registergericht Dresden: HRA 4896 vertretungsberechtigter Komplementär: AMD Saxony LLC (Sitz Wilmington, Delaware, USA) Geschäftsführer der AMD Saxony LLC: Dr. Hans-R. Deppe, Thomas McCoy _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Keir Fraser
2007-Aug-23 14:12 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] 2/3: MCA/MCE correctable error handling
On 23/8/07 08:07, "Christoph Egger" <Christoph.Egger@amd.com> wrote:> Therefore, all what I expected from you were some questions/comments about > implementation details and no design/concept questions.Whether the info is propagated via a hypercall or via shared_info is an implementation detail, as far as I''m concerned. If you want to add stuff to shared_info you need a strong argument why it can''t be done by other means. -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel