Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:56:18 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> To: wilko@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu>, Dave Haney <dave@engg.ksu.edu>, freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Unexpected machine check Message-ID: <14564.55164.916097.475755@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <20000331181946.D1351@yedi.iaf.nl> References: <Pine.SO4.4.00.10003291814390.21551-100000@phobos.engg.ksu.edu> <20000330201513.A1750@yedi.iaf.nl> <14563.40742.553401.107502@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20000330225247.C3785@yedi.iaf.nl> <14563.49235.18765.586441@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20000331181946.D1351@yedi.iaf.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wilko Bulte writes: > > No, a panic is the correct behaviour. A unexpected, uncorrectable > > machine check is a sign that something very, very, very bad has > > Let me clarify: drastic from the average user's perspective. If there is a > way to nuke the offending process without taking down the machine with it > (??? here) than that would be preferable. I have no idea if one can > selectively do this, and if it is worth doing in the first place. X servers > are 'special' in the sense that they are very intimate with the hardware > (right?). The problem is that machine checks can be asynchronous & may be caused by devices going insane, so, in general, the fact that a user process was running doesn't mean much. Combined with the fact that you may not know what caused a machine check, its pretty hard to be selective. A developer debugging an X server is a very special case. Cheers, Drew To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14564.55164.916097.475755>