11.05.2023 16:45, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
11.05.2023 14:20, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
While I would personally love to see this in -stable, I don't think it
fits the official criteria - it's not a security fix and it's not a
regression.
Okay, then let's include it into -stable.
It's just tha
On Thu, 2023-05-11 at 15:32 +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> 11.05.2023 14:20, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-05-11 at 13:55 +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote:
>
> > > Is it a -stable material?
>
> > While I would personally love to see this in -stable, I don't think
> > it
> > fits the offic
11.05.2023 14:20, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
On Thu, 2023-05-11 at 13:55 +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Is it a -stable material?
While I would personally love to see this in -stable, I don't think it
fits the official criteria - it's not a security fix and it's not a
regression.
I'm not sure
On Thu, 2023-05-11 at 13:55 +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> 11.05.2023 02:02, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> > Currently single-stepping SVC executes two instructions. The reason
> > is
> > that EXCP_DEBUG for the SVC instruction itself is masked by
> > EXCP_SVC.
> > Fix by re-raising EXCP_DEBUG.
>
> I
11.05.2023 02:02, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
Currently single-stepping SVC executes two instructions. The reason is
that EXCP_DEBUG for the SVC instruction itself is masked by EXCP_SVC.
Fix by re-raising EXCP_DEBUG.
Is it a -stable material?
/mjt
Currently single-stepping SVC executes two instructions. The reason is
that EXCP_DEBUG for the SVC instruction itself is masked by EXCP_SVC.
Fix by re-raising EXCP_DEBUG.
Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich
---
linux-user/s390x/cpu_loop.c | 9 +
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/
