Hello. Another a bit off-topic change, but I'd like to finish the discussion with Quentin.
And almost cosmetic. But I added the RFC tag to make it clear that this needs a review from someone who understands gcc-asm better. In particular I am worried if that dummy "=m" (*buf) is actually correct. And I agree with Quentin, user_insn/check_insn can be improved to allow clobbers, more flexible "output", etc. But imo they already can make this code look a bit better, and "xstate_fault" must die eventually. Quentin, could you review? I can't find your last email about this change, and I can't recall if you agree or not. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
