lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: discriminate single bit error hardware failure from slab corruption.
    On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 02:44:52AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:

    > total += hweight8(data[offset+i] ^ POISON_FREE);
    >
    > > printk(" %02x", (unsigned char)data[offset + i]);
    > > }
    > > printk("\n");
    > >@@ -1019,6 +1023,18 @@ static void dump_line(char *data, int of
    > > }
    > > }
    > > printk("\n");
    > >+ switch (total) {
    > >+ case 0x36:
    > >+ case 0x6a:
    > >+ case 0x6f:
    > >+ case 0x81:
    > >+ case 0xac:
    > >+ case 0xd3:
    > >+ case 0xd5:
    > >+ case 0xea:
    > >+ printk (KERN_ERR "Single bit error detected.
    > >Possibly bad RAM. Please run memtest86.\n");
    > >+ return;
    > >+ }
    > >
    > >
    > and a
    >
    > if (total == 1)
    > printk(...);
    >
    > here? it seems more readable and more correct as well.

    More readable ? Are you kidding ?
    What I wrote is smack-you-in-the-face-obvious what it's doing.
    With your variant, I have to sit down and think it through.

    wrt correctness, what do you see wrong with my approach?

    Dave

    -
    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: 2006-02-03 02:49    [W:0.026 / U:0.720 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site