Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:58:59 +0400 | From | Cyrill Gorcunov <> | Subject | Re: x86: cleanup - rename VM_MASK to X86_VM_MASK |
| |
[H. Peter Anvin - Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:12:33AM -0700] > Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: >> 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. > > Hard to know. VM86 is only used by a handful of applications (DOSEMU, > X.org, others?) but it's hard to know what exactly they are. > > The fact that noone hollered when that CONFIG_VM86 went in is probably a > good hint that they don't matter, but it's hard to say for sure. > > -hpa >
Peter, Ingo,
any objections on the patch like that?
--- From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> Subject: [PATCH] reintroduce old VM86 flags for userlang backward compatibility
Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> ---
Index: linux-2.6.git/include/asm-x86/vm86.h =================================================================== --- linux-2.6.git.orig/include/asm-x86/vm86.h 2008-04-23 22:38:58.000000000 +0400 +++ linux-2.6.git/include/asm-x86/vm86.h 2008-04-23 22:41:06.000000000 +0400 @@ -14,6 +14,18 @@ #include <asm/processor-flags.h> +/* backward compatibility for userland */ +#ifndef __KERNEL__ +#define TF_MASK X86_EFLAGS_TF +#define IF_MASK X86_EFLAGS_IF +#define IOPL_MASK X86_EFLAGS_IOPL +#define NT_MASK X86_EFLAGS_NT +#define AC_MASK X86_EFLAGS_AC +#define VIF_MASK X86_EFLAGS_VIF +#define VIP_MASK X86_EFLAGS_VIP +#define ID_MASK X86_EFLAGS_ID +#endif + #ifdef CONFIG_VM86 #define X86_VM_MASK X86_EFLAGS_VM #else
| |