From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 15/17] x86/traps: Fixup general protection faults
 caused by UMIP
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:36:19 -0800
Message-ID: <1487964979.115017.11.camel@ranerica-desktop>
References: <20170223063706.71554-1-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
         <20170223063706.71554-16-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
         <20170223092724.GZ6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
         <1487888144.115017.3.camel@ranerica-desktop>
         <CALCETrX-b1Pjz=bFfj+YFk=Fgy5FKTpAYig__zF=GTn4VXNf4w@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-msdos-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrX-b1Pjz=bFfj+YFk=Fgy5FKTpAYig__zF=GTn4VXNf4w@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-msdos-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-msdos.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@mellanox.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Liang Z Li <liang.z.li@intel.com>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>, Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Chen Yucong <slaoub@gmail.com>, Alexandre Julliard <>

On Fri, 2017-02-24 at 11:11 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > In a previous version Andy Lutomirsky suggested that
> >         if (user_mode(regs) && (fixup_umip_exception(regs) == 0))
> >
> > was easier to read :). Although at the time fixup_umip_exception
> > returned a numeric value. Now it only returns true/false for
> > successful/failed emulation. If with true/false not comparing to
> true
> > makes it easier to read, I will make the change.
> 
> I think == true is silly :)

Then I'll make the change.

Thanks and BR,
Ricardo