On Sat, 2017-05-27 at 12:13 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 08:40:26PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > This change was initially intended to only rename the error codes,
> > without functional changes. Would making change be considered a
> change
> > in functionality?
>
>
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 08:40:26PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> This change was initially intended to only rename the error codes,
> without functional changes. Would making change be considered a change
> in functionality?
How?
The before-and-after asm should be the identical.
--
On Sun, 2017-05-21 at 16:23 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 11:17:00AM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > Up to this point, only fault.c used the definitions of the page fault error
> > codes. Thus, it made sense to keep them within such file. Other portions of
> > code might
On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 11:17:00AM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> Up to this point, only fault.c used the definitions of the page fault error
> codes. Thus, it made sense to keep them within such file. Other portions of
> code might be interested in those definitions too. For instance, the User-
>
