From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755623AbYGSM7T (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:59:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753670AbYGSM7J (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:59:09 -0400 Received: from ik-out-1112.google.com ([66.249.90.180]:60164 "EHLO ik-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753374AbYGSM7I (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:59:08 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=mUz8KzL8d7sWjMnzGGTAwI55w7IyXX4S/w/wVZiANcZexLLh9zA/uOYxEmlia7CFyi EBkKKZM0J79bJPQH9F3lEZ8hkHBIQVG6AJYWlaWrkJPVtlHHrbytk+dtvFckewsoSVw2 hQqgFL2vVz8fIbzTsbWrB2uWdfc7GGwSXjET8= Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:59:07 +0400 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: Vegard Nossum , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: warn on apic error Message-ID: <20080719125907.GA30979@asus> References: <20080718172821.GA4149@localhost.localdomain> <20080718174413.GD6897@asus> <19f34abd0807181045k239c81e8i1520291922909e93@mail.gmail.com> <20080718174931.GE6897@asus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [Maciej W. Rozycki - Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 08:09:20PM +0100] | On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: | | > iirc, they all were there (though some error codes are specific for | > particular processor classes like P4, pentium and other - don't remeber | > you could check intel dev manual for this). | | This is an error in some newer Intel documents -- the set of supported | bits is the same for all APICs implementing the ESR register and the error | interrupt (the 82489DX is the one to provide neither). | | Maciej | But Maciej, Intel doesn't claim about absence of bit but rather about their 'reserved' state so checking the reserved bit could be false alarm if it was being set by some reason. - Cyrill -