lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: STI architectural question (and lretq -- I'm not even kidding)
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 06:33:02PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Of course, this does nothing at all to protect us from #MC after sti
> on return from #MC to userspace, but I think we're screwed regardless
> -- we could just as easily get a second #MC before the sti. Machine
> check broadcast was the worst idea ever.

Please do not think that a raised #MC means the machine is gone. There
are MC errors which are reported with the exception mechanism and from
which we can and do recover, regardless of broadcasting or not.

--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-07-23 13:21    [W:0.097 / U:1.276 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site