From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1161075AbbBCTy3 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 3 Feb 2015 14:54:29 -0500
Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:58960 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S966250AbbBCTy2 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 3 Feb 2015 14:54:28 -0500
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 20:54:02 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 05/12] x86, alternatives: Use optimized NOPs for
 padding
Message-ID: <20150203195402.GJ3463@pd.tnic>
References: <1422987390-17878-1-git-send-email-bp@alien8.de>
 <1422987390-17878-6-git-send-email-bp@alien8.de>
 <54D12342.6050909@amacapital.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <54D12342.6050909@amacapital.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 11:36:34AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I'm a bit confused here.  Shouldn't NOPs after a non-NOP in the old
> instruction also be optimized?

Yes, they should! Good point.

Thanks, will fix.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--