On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 10:21:39AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 3:56 AM, Joerg Roedel <joro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Right, I implement a more restrictive check. > > But the check needs to be correct or we'll mess up, right? I think > the code will be much more robust and easier to review if you check > "on the entry stack" instead of ">= the entry stack". (Or <= -- I can > never remember how this works in AT&T syntax.) Yeah, I re-used the check implemented on the NMI entry path, it checks exactly for the entry-stack range. Regards, Joerg
