From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jesse Barnes Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 22:58:32 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC] I/O MCA recovery Message-Id: <200405041558.32288.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> List-Id: References: <200405040954.09524.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <200405040954.09524.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday, May 4, 2004 3:51 pm, David Mosberger wrote: > Yes. I doubt it would be an issue for inX/outX emulation in the int10 > module. True. > I was talking about hard-failure of inX/outX. If SN2 does that, it's > broken and I'm not terribly sympathetic (but see below). But my point was: doesn't in/out hard fail on other ia64 platforms too? If so, then it makes sense to deal with it generically. > Jesse> it's a generic way to deal with hard fails on PIO reads, > Jesse> which afaik, affects all ia64 platforms. Correct me if I'm > Jesse> wrong here... > > Let me try to say it differently: inX/outX must soft-fail. How you > achieve that on SN2, I don't really care. If, for other reasons, > there happens to be an infrastructure you can hook into to facility > implementation of soft-fail inX/outX on SN2, that's certainly fine by > me. But don't try to use inX/outX soft-fail as a reason to justify > the infrastructure. Better? Sure, that makes sense. The other part of the implementation was to deal with regular MMIO accesses though--userspace drivers want to get signalled when an error occurs, would you propose the page fault mechanism to detect that as well, or is an MCA handler a better way to go? Thanks, Jesse