* Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On May 28, 2015 1:16 AM, "Jan Beulich" wrote:
> >
> > While commit efa7045103 ("x86/asm/entry: Make user_mode() work
> > correctly if regs came from VM86 mode") claims that "user_mode() is now
> > identical to user_mode_vm()", this wasn't actually the case - no prior
On May 28, 2015 1:16 AM, "Jan Beulich" wrote:
>
> While commit efa7045103 ("x86/asm/entry: Make user_mode() work
> correctly if regs came from VM86 mode") claims that "user_mode() is now
> identical to user_mode_vm()", this wasn't actually the case - no prior
> commit made it so.
That's embarrass
While commit efa7045103 ("x86/asm/entry: Make user_mode() work
correctly if regs came from VM86 mode") claims that "user_mode() is now
identical to user_mode_vm()", this wasn't actually the case - no prior
commit made it so.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
Cc: Andy Lutomirski
---
arch/x86/include/as
3 matches
Mail list logo