From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757441AbYDWSdg (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:33:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753581AbYDWSdX (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:33:23 -0400 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.191]:59922 "EHLO nf-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752774AbYDWSdV (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:33:21 -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=nd7gmYoooT6++mbMTM79jbQoHRxYSjToG+Ck3V0kxGsnC5QB5QfIvhdAhxsdqIZxw4r2yh5odsmWhJneVNYbjOCDtr8w1JIt5//NuoPfYcW/lXtT25TggXA4jBrpJv/gDUyuvD+V0++S4mNt+jkMEL6ZbNhYLvrRCS/9qPOc6CI= Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:26:15 +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: <20080423182615.GA7713@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 > Actually, being google a bit I found that most of emulators redefine their own equvalence of these flags. So I think we could remain all as is. But if we wanna be sure I could make a patch like this ... #define CF_MASK X86_EFLAGS_CF ... - Cyrill -