On 22.01.19 04:18, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 03:33:21PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Does this series fix the "false positives" case I experienced on early
>> prototypes of uffd-wp? (getting notified about a write access although
>> it was not a write access?)
>
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 03:33:21PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
[...]
> Does this series fix the "false positives" case I experienced on early
> prototypes of uffd-wp? (getting notified about a write access although
> it was not a write access?)
Hi, David,
Yes it should solve it.
The early
On 21.01.19 08:56, Peter Xu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This series implements initial write protection support for
> userfaultfd. Currently both shmem and hugetlbfs are not supported
> yet, but only anonymous memory.
>
> To be simple, either "userfaultfd-wp" or "uffd-wp" might be used in
> later
Hi,
This series implements initial write protection support for
userfaultfd. Currently both shmem and hugetlbfs are not supported
yet, but only anonymous memory.
To be simple, either "userfaultfd-wp" or "uffd-wp" might be used in
later paragraphs.
The whole series can also be found at:
4 matches
Mail list logo
