Thanks for your response. My sincere apologies for not posting the work directly.
My intention is to point interested parties to contributions that Google has made to this space through known and respected channels. The cited research is not my research but the research of my colleagues. As a result, I hesitate to paraphrase the work as I will likely get the details wrong. In any case, Shane's points are the most relevant for the discussion here. Please refer to his post in this thread.
In an attempt to contribute to the community as much as I can, I have prepared and mailed our BadRAM patch as requested. In case it is not otherwise clear, my belief is that the ideal solution for the upstream kernel is a hybrid of our approaches.
Thank you,
CraigB
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Rick van Rein <rick@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello Craig,
I'm happy that this didn't cause a flame, but clearly this is not the
> Some folks had mentioned that they're interested in details about what
> we've learned about bad ram from our fleet of machines. I suspect
> that you need ACM portal access to read this,
right response in an open environment. ACM may have copyright on the
*form* in which you present your knowledge, but could you please poor
the knowledge in another form that bypasses their copyright so the
knowledge is made available to all?
Thanks,
-Rick
--
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/