Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760455AbZDJIXn (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Apr 2009 04:23:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758013AbZDJIXY (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Apr 2009 04:23:24 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:60704 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751901AbZDJIXX (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Apr 2009 04:23:23 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:25:45 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Hidetoshi Seto Cc: Andi Kleen , ying.huang@intel.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de Subject: Re: [PATCH] [3/4] x86: MCE: Improve mce_get_rip Message-ID: <20090410082545.GP14687@one.firstfloor.org> References: <20090407506.675031434@firstfloor.org> <20090407150656.43E161D046D@basil.firstfloor.org> <49DC5D11.4060505@jp.fujitsu.com> <87eiw3a29h.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <49DD80B4.5060301@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090409071413.GD14687@one.firstfloor.org> <49DDC70E.2000602@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090409101349.GH14687@one.firstfloor.org> <49DECD2F.6060708@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49DECD2F.6060708@jp.fujitsu.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1338 Lines: 38 On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 01:38:07PM +0900, Hidetoshi Seto wrote: > Andi Kleen wrote: > >> Following is a proposal version. Maybe dividing it into 2 pieces, function > >> improvement and MSR definition, would be a good idea. > > > > I don't think we need the full MSR definitions right now, at least > > I don't have any plans to support them. After all current CPUs > > don't. > > > > The rest looks good. > > Thanks. > > I still believe that using MSR which only available on 32bit from 64bit The MSR is available on 64bit too (there are 64bit capable P4s like Prescott or Smithfield) > code is not right thing. However this is not logical bug, and adding > definition is not suitable for 2.6.30. I'd like to defer the MSR part > to the next time. > > BTW, since this patch is "Improve", I think you need to clarify why you > bind it into the "bugfix" patch set for 2.6.30. If there are known bug, > please describe about it. It reports the incorrect RIP, fixing one of the test cases in the MCE regression test suite. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/