On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-02-23 at 14:17 -0800, Ricardo Neri wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-02-23 at 08:24 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:36:50PM -0800, Ricardo Neri wrote:
>> > > + /*
>> > > + * A nega
On Fri, 2017-02-24 at 09:47 -0500, Nathan Howard wrote:
> Also, this code would read better with the inner test
> reversed or done first
>
> if (indx_offset < 0) {
> if (indx_offset != -EDOM)
>
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Ricardo Neri
wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-02-23 at 10:27 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:37:04PM -0800, Ricardo Neri wrote:
>> > @@ -492,6 +493,9 @@ do_general_protection(struct pt_regs *regs, long
>> > error_code)
>> > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rc
On Fri, 2017-02-24 at 11:11 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > In a previous version Andy Lutomirsky suggested that
> > if (user_mode(regs) && (fixup_umip_exception(regs) == 0))
> >
> > was easier to read :). Although at the time fixup_umip_exception
> > returned a numeric value. Now it only
Luck
From: h...@zytor.com
Message-ID:
On February 24, 2017 11:36:19 AM PST, Ricardo Neri
wrote:
>On Fri, 2017-02-24 at 11:11 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > In a previous version Andy Lutomirsky suggested that
>> > if (user_mode(regs) && (fixup_umip_exception(regs) == 0))
>> >
>> >
