On 20 November 2017 at 14:23, Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> wrote: > I wonder why the choice was made to re-use SIGBUS for this. I guess the > meaning is semantically the same (some hardware fault) but surprising > they are now asynchronously delivered. When it eventually arrives at the > vCPU it won't be directly tied to what tripped up the machine checking > logic to trigger? Maybe this was never always the case?
I think the comments in cpus.c:sigbus_handler() mean "asynchronously" in the sense of "at any time, not just when we explicitly check" (in contrast to the main thread where we only process SIGBUS when we want to, via signalfd). In general though some RAS errors are not going to be synchronous-exceptions in the Arm ARM terms. thanks -- PMM
