Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:44:44 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/6] HWPOISON: clean up memory_failure() vs. __memory_failure() |
| |
* Luck, Tony <tony.luck@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > printk(KERN_ERR "Action optional memory failure at %lx ignored\n", pfn); > > > > > > Btw., while at it, could we phrase this message in a more > > > obvious way to users, such as 'Non-fatal memory failure at > > > %lx ignored'? > > > > Yeah, that's might not be as correct as we want it to be. AO > > means it is an uncorrectable error, i.e. it will become fatal > > if we'd consumed it, but it isn't that now because we just saw > > it passing by in the cacheline... > > > > Maybe "Fatal, unconsumed error ignored..." > > The overall meaning is "land mine seen but not stepped on yet"
Perfect message!
Thanks,
Ingo
| |