![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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=6b6891f9c545ccd45d6d8ddfd33ce27c22c271a7 > > > 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? | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2008-04-23 07:03 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||