On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:12:49AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > Ha, no. My comment was that it'd be worth explaining that the original > 'c->x86_model >= 0' check was completely bogus, even if the intent was > something like 'c->x86_model != 0'.
Nah, the intent was, I believe, to convert a model range into a
conditional. If ->x86_model is not set we have bigger problems.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
