Christophe LEROY writes:
> Hi Anton,
>
> Le 04/04/2017 à 00:00, Anton Blanchard a écrit :
>> Hi Christophe,
>>
- if (user_mode(regs))
+ if (!is_exec && user_mode(regs))
>>>
>>> Shouldn't it also check 'is_write' ?
>>> If it is a store, is_write should be set, shouldn't it ?
>>
>> Than
Hi Anton,
Le 04/04/2017 à 00:00, Anton Blanchard a écrit :
Hi Christophe,
- if (user_mode(regs))
+ if (!is_exec && user_mode(regs))
Shouldn't it also check 'is_write' ?
If it is a store, is_write should be set, shouldn't it ?
Thanks, Ben had the same suggestion. I'll add that f
Hi Christophe,
> > - if (user_mode(regs))
> > + if (!is_exec && user_mode(regs))
>
> Shouldn't it also check 'is_write' ?
> If it is a store, is_write should be set, shouldn't it ?
Thanks, Ben had the same suggestion. I'll add that further optimisation
in a subsequent patch.
Anton
Anton Blanchard a écrit :
From: Anton Blanchard
Early on in do_page_fault() we call store_updates_sp(), regardless of
the type of exception. For an instruction miss this doesn't make
sense, because we only use this information to detect if a data miss
is the result of a stack expansion instru
From: Anton Blanchard
Early on in do_page_fault() we call store_updates_sp(), regardless of
the type of exception. For an instruction miss this doesn't make
sense, because we only use this information to detect if a data miss
is the result of a stack expansion instruction or not.
Worse still, it
From: Anton Blanchard
Early on in do_page_fault() we call store_updates_sp(), regardless of
the type of exception. For an instruction miss this doesn't make
sense, because we only use this information to detect if a data miss
is the result of a stack expansion instruction or not.
Worse still, it