Bug 135455

Summary: Replace "low quality" error message when memory parity errors.
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 Reporter: David Lehman <dlehman>
Component: kernelAssignee: Larry Woodman <lwoodman>
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 3.0CC: bfox, lwang, peterm, petrides, rperkins, tao, tburke
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: FutureFeature
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2005-09-21 19:38:57 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 142602    

Description David Lehman 2004-10-12 20:00:44 UTC 
Current message is:
  printk("Uhhuh. NMI received. Dazed and confused, but trying to continue\n");
  printk("You probably have a hardware problem with your RAM chips\n");

AOL would prefer it be more descriptive and more professional, like:
  printk("NMI received. Memory parity error detected. Attempting to continue.\n");
  printk("You probably have a hardware problem with your RAM chips\n");

The message is inside a function called mem_parity_error in
arch/{i386,x86_64}/kernel/traps.c
Comment 6 Larry Woodman 2005-02-08 22:54:12 UTC 
What type of a change are we looking at making here?

Currently mem_parity_error for both x86 and x86_64 print out this:
>>>"Uhhuh. NMI received. Dazed and confused, but trying to continue"
>>>"You probably have a hardware problem with your RAM chips"

Shall we change it to something like this?
>>>"NMI memory parity error recieved, trying to continue"
>>>"This might indicate that the RAM has incurred a hardware error."


Larry Woodman
Comment 11 Ernie Petrides 2005-09-21 19:38:57 UTC 
There was a lengthly internal debate about generating "more professional
error messages" for serious kernel problems.  During this discussion,
which was in February of 2005, the idea of making such changes (deviating
from Upstream) was shot down.

Thus, I'm closing this as WONTFIX and removing it from the U7 Proposed list.