On 07/04/20 23:41, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > 2. Access to bad memory results in #MC. Sure, #MC is a turd, but > it’s an *architectural* turd. By all means, have a nice simple PV > mechanism to tell the #MC code exactly what went wrong, but keep the > overall flow the same as in the native case. > > I think I like #2 much better. It has another nice effect: a good > implementation will serve as a way to exercise the #MC code without > needing to muck with EINJ or with whatever magic Tony uses. The > average kernel developer does not have access to a box with testable > memory failure reporting. I prefer #VE, but I can see how #MC has some appeal. However, #VE has a mechanism to avoid reentrancy, unlike #MC. How would that be better than the current mess with an NMI happening in the first few instructions of the #PF handler? Paolo
