* Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote:
> On May 28, 2015 1:16 AM, "Jan Beulich" <jbeul...@suse.com> 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 embarrassing! I'm not sure how I screwed that up.
I should have noticed it too :-/
In fact I remember that I wanted to double check it all because the algorithmic
complexity of the new test looked suspiciously too simple on the 32-bit side
(we
_did_ have a legitimate reason to keep the API split originally) - but forgot
about it.
> Acked-by: Andy Lutomirski <l...@kernel.org>
>
> This is needed for x86/urgent.
Yeah, queued it up.
> [...] I'll see if I can write a simple test case, too. My old do_bounds
> test
> should be a good start.
That kind of test would be absolutely fantastic to have.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
