Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier <at> arm.com> writes: > Good catch again, but I'd rather approach this in a way that is similar > to the patch I posted last year, unifying some of the paths between > the 32 and 64 accesses (the code paths are really pointlessly different). > > I have the below patch, fully untested. What we could also do would be > to take your patch as a fix, and then consider refactoring the beast... > > Thoughts? > I think maybe the small patch could be taken since it could be easy to backport to stable kernel. But both are fine to me. So up to you?
Thanks, _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
