From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Alberto Munoz" Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:37:51 +0000 Subject: RE: [RFC] Better MCA recovery on IPF Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew Wilcox [mailto:willy@debian.org] > Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 9:31 AM > To: Alberto Munoz > Cc: Luck, Tony; Jack Steiner; Matthias Fouquet-Lapar; Russ Anderson; > linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [RFC] Better MCA recovery on IPF > > > On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 09:14:08AM -0800, Alberto Munoz wrote: > > What implementation of the Itanium processor supports > avoiding MCAs from > > lfetch or code fetch operations? I don't think Itanium 1 or > 2 do this. How > > about Madison? > > Oops, misunderstanding here. Madison and Deerfield are also > Itanium 2. > It's like Coppermine and Tualatin are both Pentium 3. When > the difference > is only cache size, die size, clock frequency and so on, they're not > going to change the number. For bigger changes, they might ;-) Not really a misunderstanding. I just got a little lose with the names. I should have said Merced, McKinley instead of Itanium 1 and 2. In any case, it has been my experience that some times there are fairly major changes in RAS features (typically addressing shortcomings of a predecessor) betweens processors of the same vintage (McKinley, Madison and Deerfield). Bert Munoz > -- > "It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about > defeat or > victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and > thousands of dead bodies. > Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this > subject?" -- Robert Fisk > >