On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 08:38:25PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 11:24:48AM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote: > > I will create these helper functions. This change and your suggestion in > > patch 18 will impact other patches in the series (e.g., the function > > get_addr_ref_16() in patch 22). Would it make sense to submit a v10 and > > resume review there? > > > > Also, do you think I am still on-time to make it to v4.15? > > Well, I've been thinking about it: handling huge patchsets is always > very cumbersome, time-consuming and error prone. So perhaps it would be > easier - maybe - I'm not saying it will definitely but only maybe - if > you would split the patchset into, say, two, pieces, or halves, if you > will. > > And I think the first piece is more or less reviewed and if tip guys > don't find any booboos, it could go in now. Which would free you to deal > with the other half later.
Since MPX uses this emulation code and only cares about 64-bit addresses (given the initial implemention from which I based my code), patches 1-18 need to be pulled together. Perhaps I can send the v10 of patches 1-18 (or a v1 since is a new series?). Patches 19-29 would constitute a series of improved emulation plus UMIP code. Does it make sense? Thanks and BR, Ricardo > --
