From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751395AbdFADJe (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2017 23:09:34 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:1376 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751090AbdFADJc (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2017 23:09:32 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,277,1493708400"; d="scan'208";a="863370774" Message-ID: <1496286570.24288.65.camel@ranerica-desktop> Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 02/26] x86/mm: Relocate page fault error codes to traps.h From: Ricardo Neri To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Morton , Brian Gerst , Chris Metcalf , Dave Hansen , Paolo Bonzini , Masami Hiramatsu , Huang Rui , Jiri Slaby , Jonathan Corbet , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Paul Gortmaker , Vlastimil Babka , Chen Yucong , Alexandre Julliard , Stas Sergeev , Fenghua Yu , "Ravi V. Shankar" , Shuah Khan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-msdos@vger.kernel.org, wine-devel@winehq.org, "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Josh Poimboeuf Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 20:09:30 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20170527101330.bcjuffgczk53n447@pd.tnic> References: <20170505181724.55000-1-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> <20170505181724.55000-3-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> <20170521142330.GC5676@nazgul.tnic> <1495856426.24288.47.camel@ranerica-desktop> <20170527101330.bcjuffgczk53n447@pd.tnic> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4-0ubuntu2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? > > How? > > The before-and-after asm should be the identical. Yes but it reads differently. I just wanted to double check. I will make this change, which keeps functionality but is written differently. Thanks and BR, Ricardo