From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761064AbYC0T6Y (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:58:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758162AbYC0T6Q (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:58:16 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.173]:39356 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757787AbYC0T6P (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:58:15 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=oyC5rjdQ3c5/J4nYmiX9lDsGDtj06SbmMlOMeZbuZfoN8Zb20W+TZ6GNb3By67OYNkj61bbPrpKc/cnFgo3Of9pjEqYcB1W3Fc5zR13I5ngiVKcTKL80JPLIF+XcukNWQ3txTXA4wmoBJ23CgQj8lGI2iCuabn/p7xXIUvDb8pU= Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:56:56 +0300 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Ingo Molnar , LKML Subject: Re: processor flags Message-ID: <20080327195656.GB7633@cvg> References: <20080327194749.GA7633@cvg> <47EBFBBE.4060404@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47EBFBBE.4060404@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 - Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:55:42PM -0700] > Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: >> And now I'm in confusion - the way of changing this code I see is the >> following: >> - or use additional #ifdef CONFIG_VM86 in code where VM_MASK is used >> (that would be ugly IMHO) >> - rename VM_MASK to say X86_EFLAGS_VM86 with that #ifdef remained >> - rest VM_MASK as it is >> How do you think? > > I think what we should do is: > > - Rename VM_MASK to X86_VM_MASK (it's x86-specific after all) > - Have: > > #if CONFIG_VM86 > # define X86_VM_MASK X86_EFLAGS_VM > #else > # define X86_VM_MASK 0 /* No V86 support */ > #endif > > -hpa > Thanks a lot, Peter - Cyrill -