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 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 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 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-
>
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-
>
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-
Mode Instruction Prevention emulation code will use such definitions to
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-
Mode Instruction Prevention emulation code will use such definitions to
10 matches
Mail list logo
