>>> On 30.03.15 at 11:49, <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 27/03/2015 17:21, Jan Beulich wrote: >> And then the way access_with_adjusted_size() works, it looks to >> me as if with .impl.min_access_size set to greater than 1 >> unaligned accesses could still reach the actual read or write >> handler, as only the access size would get bumped, but no >> adjustment be made to the address. > > I don't understand what you mean exactly. Do you have an example?
access_size_min = 4 together with size = 1 yield access_size = 4, but for a not 4-byte-aligned address (which still is properly aligned for the original 1-byte access) access() will be called with a mis- aligned address/size pair. Jan
