lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jan]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC/PATCH, 2/4] readX_check() performance evaluation


On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> If the real error is on the bridge somewhere but you don't even know which
> CPU did the access (and just "somebody" gets an MCE), just set a global
> flag, and have "read_pcix_error()" check the bridge (since it doesn't need
> to look anything up - it already knows the device).
>
> And in that case then you need to take the proper locks (per-bridge, or
> global, depending on just how much you care) in "clear_pcix_error()" and
> release them in "read_pcix_error()".

Note, in case this wasn't clear already: in this case, the "MCE flag" is
just a lazy flag saying "you need to check more deeply". It wouldn't cause
false positives, simply because the _real_ check ends up being
"read_pcix_error()" actually reading the error status from the bridge or
the device.

It's just that 99% of the time, you don't want to do even that.

Linus
-
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: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.104 / U:0.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site