On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote:
quoted text
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:17 AM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
>  > On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 18:56 +0000, Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
>  >  > Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=6b6891...
>  >  > Commit:     6b6891f9c545ccd45d6d8ddfd33ce27c22c271a7
>  >  > Parent:     6093015db2bd9e70cf20cdd23be1a50733baafdd
>  >  > Author:     gorcunov@gmail.com <gorcunov@gmail.com>
>  >  > AuthorDate: Fri Mar 28 17:56:57 2008 +0300
>  >  > Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
>  >  > CommitDate: Thu Apr 17 17:41:33 2008 +0200
>  >  >
>  >  >     x86: cleanup - rename VM_MASK to X86_VM_MASK
>  >  >
>  >  >     This patch renames VM_MASK to X86_VM_MASK (which
>  >  >     in turn defined as alias to X86_EFLAGS_VM) to better
>  >  >     distinguish from virtual memory flags. We can't just
>  >  >     use X86_EFLAGS_VM instead because it is also used
>  >  >     for conditional compilation
>  >  >
>  >  >     Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
>  >  >     Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
>  >
>  >
>  >  > --- a/include/asm-x86/vm86.h
>  >  > +++ b/include/asm-x86/vm86.h
>  >  > @@ -17,9 +17,9 @@
>  >  >  #define IOPL_MASK    0x00003000
>  >  >  #define NT_MASK              0x00004000
>  >  >  #ifdef CONFIG_VM86
>  >  > -#define VM_MASK              0x00020000
>  >  > +#define X86_VM_MASK  X86_EFLAGS_VM
>  >  >  #else
>  >  > -#define VM_MASK              0 /* ignored */
>  >  > +#define X86_VM_MASK  0 /* No VM86 support */
>  >  >  #endif
>  >  >  #define AC_MASK              0x00040000
>  >  >  #define VIF_MASK     0x00080000      /* virtual interrupt flag */
>  >
>  >  This is user-visible. Yet we're changing the name and also making it
>  >  depend on #ifdef CONFIG_VM86, which is not going to be set in userspace.
>  >  Perhaps it should be within #ifdef __KERNEL__?
>  >
>  >  --
>  >  dwmw2
>  >
>  >
>
>  Thanks David, will check it today evening (i'm in office now)
>

Hi David,

actually, this CONFIG_VM86 was there even before the renaming was done.
The main questions (imo) - is there any user space application who uses
these flags? If they are - then even the idea of this patch was a bit bogus,
and I should *not* remove all these VM86 specific flags but better define them
as aliases on flags from processor-flags.h.

Ingo? Peter?
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/