On 20/02/20 21:11, Sean Christopherson wrote: >> How about naming it as EMULTYPE_PF_ALLOW_RETRY and exchanging the bit >> position with EMULTYPE_PF ? > Hmm, EMULTYPE_PF_ALLOW_RETRY does sound better. I'm on the fence regarding > shuffling the bits. If I were to shuffle the bits, I'd do a more thorough > reorder so that the #UD and #PF types are consecutive, e.g. Let's just change the name, I can do it. Paolo
