Re: Is vm86old no more implemented?

[Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@mail.ru>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1364 bytes --]

On Суббота 06 декабря 2008 13:20:47 Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 12:52:43PM +0300, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
> > On Суббота 06 декабря 2008 11:56:03 Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@mail.ru> writes:
> > > > CONFIG_VM86 is defined; is there anything else that is needed?
> > > > This fails both in 2.6.27.7 and in 2.6.28-rc7. I attach config
> > > > from 2.6.28-rc7.
> > >
> > > It should still work. Can you double check you're running the
> > > correct kernel? Perhaps a 64bit kernel (which doesn't implement
> > > it).
> >
> > Linux cooker 2.6.28-rc7-1avb #23 Fri Dec 5 22:42:47 MSK 2008 i686
> > Pentium III (Coppermine) GNU/Linux
> >
> > Anything else I can check?
>
> Hmm perhaps place a printk into
> arch/x86/kernel/vm86_32.c:sys_vm86old() and see if it's reached.
>

It is:

[  156.094049] sys_vm86old called by monitor-get-edi
[  156.243660] sys_vm86old called by monitor-get-edi
[  285.698333] sys_vm86old called by X
[  285.699408] sys_vm86old called by X
[  285.699813] sys_vm86old called by X

any chance the specific function that is invoked is not implemented? 
Because at least X apparently does not always fail video BIOS call - how 
can I catch which calls were successful and which failed? I understand 
return path sys_vm86old is rather non-standard.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]