Is this patch going to be merged? Or still any blocking issue there?
Thanks,
Bo
-Original Message-
From: shuah [mailto:sh...@kernel.org]
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 10:05 PM
To: Tong, Bo ; l...@kernel.org; x...@kernel.org
Cc: linux-kselft...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel
tack and page faults are within the 10th(lowest priority) class, and
as it said, "exceptions within each class are implementation-dependent and
may vary from processor to processor". It's expected for processors like
Intel Atom to trigger stack fault(SIGBUS), while we get page fault(SIGSEGV)
from c
tack and page faults are within the 10th(lowest priority) class, and
as it said, "exceptions within each class are implementation-dependent and
may vary from processor to processor". It's expected for processors like
Intel Atom to trigger stack fault(SIGBUS), while we get page fault(SIGSEGV)
from comm
mmon Core processors.
Thanks,
Bo
-Original Message-
From: Andy Lutomirski [mailto:l...@kernel.org]
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 2:10 AM
To: Tong, Bo
Cc: Shuah Khan ; Andrew Lutomirski ; open
list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK ; LKML
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/x86: Support Atom for syscall_arg
tack and page faults are within the 10th(lowest priority) class, and
as it said, "exceptions within each class are implementation-dependent and
may vary from processor to processor". It's expected for processors like
Intel Atom to trigger stack fault(sigbus), while we get page fault(sigsegv)
5 matches
Mail list logo