On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 03:19:47AM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > It was not a bug, or at least not an active one. The new encoding was > only added with revision 3 of the architecture or thereabouts, so not so > long ago. It used to be reserved previously, so we just handled it > arbitrarily (though perhaps we should have panicked instead on > encountering it indeed). The patch at least was applicable to all 2.4 and 2.6 branches ... Ralf
