Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:51:33 -0700 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ECC memory support Message-ID: <199810231851.LAA00640@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 22 Oct 1998 18:47:39 PDT." <199810230147.SAA19488@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Oct 22, 4:19pm, Mike Smith wrote: > } Subject: Re: ECC memory support > > } Firstly, there's no guarantee that you're going to *get* an NMI on a > } soft ECC error. If the design integrates error detection into the > } BIOS, you're going to get an SMI and the BIOS will run regardless. > > This is an area that I'm very unfamiliar with. Who sets up the interrupt > vector so that the BIOS gets control? I presume it's the BIOS and the > kernel is careful not to change the vector. The BIOS does. The kernel doesn't know anything about system management mode (SMM) or the system management interrupt (SMI), and it shouldn't, as it's specifically designed to allow the BIOS to obtain control while the system is running in order to perform system-specific tasks. > } If you did, there would be no point in calling the BIOS, as you already > } know what's going on. > > Ok, and I assume that if the kernel gets an SMI it is non-fatal, unlike > what currently happens with an NMI. The kernel doesn't get the SMI, the BIOS does. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199810231851.LAA00640>