On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 12:49 PM Tony Luck <tony.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If PSR.ac is set, we trap. If it isn't set, then model specific
> (though all implementations will
> trap for an unaligned access that crosses a 4K boundary).
Ok. At that point, setting AC unconditionally is the better model just
to get test coverage for "it will trap occasionally anyway".
Odd "almost-but-not-quite x86" both in naming and in behavior (AC was
a no-op in kernel-mode until SMAP).
> Your patch does make all the messages go away.
>
> Tested-by: Tony Luck <tony.l...@intel.com>
Ok, I'll commit it, and we'll see what Al can come up with that might
be a bigger cleanup.
Linus
