Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Implement PT_GETXSTATE and PT_SETXSTATE

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <62b4f30a-f5ad-6e6c-1406-568e5d51719c%gmx.com@localhost>,
Kamil Rytarowski  <n54%gmx.com@localhost> wrote:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>On 06.06.2019 17:10, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>> It is better style to do avoid the extra checks and duplication so I would
>> also fix the original :-).
>> 
>> Having said all of that, I don't see any of those changes are "risky" or
>> creating issues for the -9 branch, so I don't see a reason to delay them.
>> 
>> christos
>> 
>
>I wanted to check it first with GDB, LLDB, EDB and through ATF tests on
>multiple setups (xen, i386, amd64, guest of haxm/xen/nvmm/etc, amd,
>intel...). However if you feel confident we can commit it sooner and in
>case of trouble redefine it before 9.0.

It can't hurt (since nothing will use it initially) and then we can fix
it quicker :-)

christos