On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 07:55:46AM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote: > On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:31:11 +0200, Borislav Petkov said: > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 12:37:28PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote: > > > > True. Like stated by me earlier, there could be two possible outcomes > > > from capturing memory dump in such cases - they're either dangerous or > > > doesn't make sense. > > > > Why, in the second example the only corruption is to the L2 cache so > > your memory image is intact. Why wouldn't you want to capture a memory > > dump then? It is business as usual in that case. > > I'll bite. What's the use case for bothering to capture a memory dump when > you're looking at an MCE that indicates L2 cache corruption? What additional > useful information could you possibly get from the dump? This was just a hypothetical example to show that you need a more finer-grained differentiation between fatal MCEs when deciding to dump or not to dump :-) and not to unconditionally _not_ dump just because we're going to panic. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
