Hi Jan,
On 17/01/17 09:09, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.01.17 at 19:46, wrote:
On 09/01/17 08:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 07.01.17 at 07:05, wrote:
Question: Why this address is not mapped?. If mapped where this va is
mapped?.
Well, I think this is the wrong question to ask. Why would it be map
Hi Stefano,
On 16/01/17 19:59, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017, Julien Grall wrote:
On 09/01/17 08:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 07.01.17 at 07:05, wrote:
Question: Why this address is not mapped?. If mapped where this va is
mapped?.
Well, I think this is the wrong question to as
>>> On 16.01.17 at 19:46, wrote:
> On 09/01/17 08:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 07.01.17 at 07:05, wrote:
>>> Question: Why this address is not mapped?. If mapped where this va is
>>> mapped?.
>>
>> Well, I think this is the wrong question to ask. Why would it be mapped
>> if there's no memory
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> On 09/01/17 08:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > On 07.01.17 at 07:05, wrote:
> > > Question: Why this address is not mapped?. If mapped where this va is
> > > mapped?.
> >
> > Well, I think this is the wrong question to ask. Why would it be
Hi Jan,
On 09/01/17 08:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 07.01.17 at 07:05, wrote:
Question: Why this address is not mapped?. If mapped where this va is
mapped?.
Well, I think this is the wrong question to ask. Why would it be mapped
if there's no memory there?
(XEN) Walking Hypervisor VA 0x847fff
>>> On 07.01.17 at 07:05, wrote:
> Question: Why this address is not mapped?. If mapped where this va is
> mapped?.
Well, I think this is the wrong question to ask. Why would it be mapped
if there's no memory there?
> (XEN) Walking Hypervisor VA 0x847f on CPU0 via TTBR
> 0xffcf
