Re: discriminate single bit error hardware failure from slab corruption.

[Dave Jones]

On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 02:44:52AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:

 >         total += hweight8(data[offset+i] ^ POISON_FREE);
 > 
 > >		printk(" %02x", (unsigned char)data[offset + i]);
 > >	}
 > >	printk("\n");
 > >@@ -1019,6 +1023,18 @@ static void dump_line(char *data, int of
 > >		}
 > >	}
 > >	printk("\n");
 > >+	switch (total) {
 > >+		case 0x36:
 > >+		case 0x6a:
 > >+		case 0x6f:
 > >+		case 0x81:
 > >+		case 0xac:
 > >+		case 0xd3:
 > >+		case 0xd5:
 > >+		case 0xea:
 > >+			printk (KERN_ERR "Single bit error detected. 
 > >Possibly bad RAM. Please run memtest86.\n");
 > >+			return;
 > >+	}
 > > 
 > >
 > and a
 > 
 >     if (total == 1)
 >           printk(...);
 > 
 > here? it seems more readable and more correct as well.

More readable ? Are you kidding ?
What I wrote is smack-you-in-the-face-obvious what it's doing.
With your variant, I have to sit down and think it through.

wrt correctness, what do you see wrong with my approach?

		Dave

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/