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:0.163 / U:0.452 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site