On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 19:32:37 +0000 "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Got it. Another thing I want to say is that when mca_cfg.tolerant is set to 3, this NMI handling will also panic the system in some case, but it seems there is not a big influence though. Thanks Aili Yao
