> I am not smart enough to get the point. I have paid a lot of time for this patch, > I need an result even it doesn't work. so i like the reply like this: > > 1. this patch is meaningless, and should be rejected. > 2. this issue is real, but we need other methond, not this patch. > 3. the patch need to improve. I don't want to say that the patch is meaningless ... it may be useful to you in your environment to help sort out machine checks due to h/w issues vs. programming errors in the machine check recovery code. But I don't think it is generally useful in the upstream code. -Tony
