![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
> +#define MCE_LOG_LEN 32> +#define MCE_OVERFLOW 0 /* bit 0 in flags means overflow */
> +#define MCE_LOG_SIGNATURE "MACHINECHECK"
> +#define MCE_GET_RECORD_LEN _IOR('M', 1, int)
> +#define MCE_GET_LOG_LEN _IOR('M', 2, int)
> +#define MCE_GETCLEAR_FLAGS _Io
Just noticed this:
First I think it would be better if you used the same format
(with u64) as x86-64 because this is a user visible interface,
and we get problems with 32bit emulation if it's too different.
Also it would allow to share the mcelog.c codebase.
> +> +struct mce {> + u64 tsc; /* cpu timestamp counter */> + u32 stsl;> + u32 stsh;> + u32 miscl;> + u32 misch;> + u32 addrl;> + u32 addrh;> + u32 mcgstl;> + u32 mcgsth;> + u32 eip;> + u8 cs; /* code segment */> + u8 bank; /* machine check bank */> + u8 cpu; /* cpu that raised the error */> + u8 finished; /* entry is valid */> + void *ext_arg; /* extended feature arg */
A pointer? That doesn't make sense. This record must
be self contained because it is passed by read()
-Andi
-
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/
| ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:08 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||