Re: [PATCH-2] NMI trap revised (was Re: NMI errors in 2.0.30??)

Riccardo Facchetti (
Fri, 9 May 1997 18:07:25 +0200 (MET DST)

> Hmmm... there are numerous "design flaws" in this solution:
> (1) You read even the reserved pages which could contain memory-mapped
> ports doing strange things even when being read.
> (2) You expect the freshly allocated temporary page to contain no parity
> errors.

Hmmm, yes ... I agree, I was coding that patch, very late last night :)
Just a thing. How can I find out if a page is reserved ?

> > Hmmm I have seen an enable_NMI or something like that in the pre-2.1.37-5
> > patch. It uses the bit 3 of 0x61, but my manual state that bit 3 ena/dis
> > I/O Channel Check while bit 2 ena/dis Memory Parity Check. Who is wrong ?
> > Me or the pre kernel patch ?
> Maybe both :-)
> I'll look at it today.
> Have a nice fortnight

Heh ... was so late for coding :))
Hmmm ... I think we have to find out a minimum set of specs that are
followed by all the MBs.
For example, I know APM can generate NMIs. It should be simple (knowing
the specs) to trap for example a "battery low" NMI, but ... is APM a
standard even regarding I/O ports and their bits ?