In article <[email protected]>, Kamil Rytarowski <[email protected]> wrote: >-=-=-=-=-=- >-=-=-=-=-=- > >On 06.06.2019 17:10, Christos Zoulas wrote: >> It is better style to do avoid the extra checks and duplication so I would >> also fix the original :-). >> >> Having said all of that, I don't see any of those changes are "risky" or >> creating issues for the -9 branch, so I don't see a reason to delay them. >> >> christos >> > >I wanted to check it first with GDB, LLDB, EDB and through ATF tests on >multiple setups (xen, i386, amd64, guest of haxm/xen/nvmm/etc, amd, >intel...). However if you feel confident we can commit it sooner and in >case of trouble redefine it before 9.0.
It can't hurt (since nothing will use it initially) and then we can fix it quicker :-) christos
