* Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]> wrote: > On May 28, 2015 1:16 AM, "Jan Beulich" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > 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 [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
