> Oh, I see. Is it the case that the MC code can't cleanly handle the > case where the error was nominally recoverable but the kernel doesn't > know how to recover from it due to the lack of a handler that's okay > with it, because the handler's refusal to handle the fault wouldn't be > known until too late? The code is just too clunky right now. We have a table driven severity calculator that we invoke on each machine check bank that has some valid data to report. Part of that calculation is "what context am I in?". Which happens earlier in the sequence than "Is MCi_STATUS.MCACOD some known recoverable type". If I invoke the fixup code I'll change regs->ip right away ... even if I'm executing on some innocent bystander processor that wasn't the source of the machine check (the bystanders on the same socket can usually see something logged in one of the memory controller banks). There are definitely some cleanups that should be done in this code (e.g. figuring our context just once, not once per bank). But I'm pretty sure I'll always want to know "am I executing an instruction with a #MC recoverable handler?" in a way that doesn't actually invoke the recovery. -Tony -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>