[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xen-devel] Re: Do we need consider PAE when implement APEI-ERST feature?

To: "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@xxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 05:13:24 +0100
Cc: "Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>, "Li, Xin" <xin.li@xxxxxxxxx>, "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 21:14:18 -0700
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
Thread-index: Acsm7K01xCKNoYQnRC6JO+zRlwGhGAADA22A
Thread-topic: Do we need consider PAE when implement APEI-ERST feature?

On 19/07/2010 03:47, "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Recently we are implement Xen APEI-ERST feature which is used to save/restore
> key platform error info before/after system crash/reboot.
> APEI-ERST is a new ACPI freature, only supported by latest Intel platform
> (x86-64).
> 
> My question is, do we need consider PAE when implement APEI-ERST feature? any
> strong reason?

Is there any particular reason it would be x86_64-specific? Supporting PAE
hosts with the new feature isn't essential however.

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

References:
- [Xen-devel] Do we need consider PAE when implement APEI-ERST feature?
  - From: Liu, Jinsong

Prev by Date: [Xen-devel] Do we need consider PAE when implement APEI-ERST feature?
Next by Date: [Xen-devel] Re: xen_sched_clock problem in RHEL6b2, Was: [PATCH] x86: unconditionally mark TSC unstable under Xen
Previous by thread: [Xen-devel] Do we need consider PAE when implement APEI-ERST feature?
Next by thread: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xenconsoled: close logfile when cleaning up domain
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.