On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 11:05:45PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> If it's mapped and readable-but-not-writable then it should still
> fault on write accesses, though? These are cases we currently get
> SEGV for, anyway.
Yes then it'll work just fine.
> Ah, I guess we have a terminology difference.
On 21 November 2014 20:14, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 05:56:59PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 29 October 2014 17:46, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>> > After some chat during the KVMForum I've been already thinking it
>> > could be beneficial for some usage to
Hi Peter,
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 05:56:59PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 29 October 2014 17:46, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > After some chat during the KVMForum I've been already thinking it
> > could be beneficial for some usage to give userland the information
> > about the fault being read
On 29 October 2014 17:46, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> After some chat during the KVMForum I've been already thinking it
> could be beneficial for some usage to give userland the information
> about the fault being read or write
...I wonder if that would let us replace the current nasty
mess we use
4 matches
Mail list logo
