From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757906AbYDWS7z (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:59:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753108AbYDWS7r (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:59:47 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.153]:26622 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753453AbYDWS7q (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:59:46 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=eLAItM7UIruHBP4UXhq4uS/Kc5H+Hj7YNUPsvgg/fEdymnwTOfXsexiMd2zmZQLxaq6lvvtj/Lp2xiYzz0F8vlBtlmDk+lASgiTz4i/0DyA1ppF9VFETVHlIbVyaXa2il8EeWWU/lB8S0gGtRE6lxh9Y1k1i07xxzSqRV8eGX6Y= Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:58:59 +0400 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: David Woodhouse , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: x86: cleanup - rename VM_MASK to X86_VM_MASK Message-ID: <20080423185859.GB7713@cvg> References: <200804181856.m3IIuKd4007403@hera.kernel.org> <1208917076.9212.721.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <480F7C11.8040302@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <480F7C11.8040302@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [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 Subject: [PATCH] reintroduce old VM86 flags for userlang backward compatibility Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov --- 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 +/* 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