* Re: x86: cleanup - rename VM_MASK to X86_VM_MASK
2008-04-23 18:12 ` H. Peter Anvin
@ 2008-04-23 18:26 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2008-04-23 18:58 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2008-04-27 10:09 ` Pavel Machek
2 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Cyrill Gorcunov @ 2008-04-23 18:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: H. Peter Anvin; +Cc: David Woodhouse, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Ingo Molnar
[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 -
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: x86: cleanup - rename VM_MASK to X86_VM_MASK
2008-04-23 18:12 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-04-23 18:26 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
@ 2008-04-23 18:58 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2008-04-23 22:38 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-04-27 10:09 ` Pavel Machek
2 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Cyrill Gorcunov @ 2008-04-23 18:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: H. Peter Anvin; +Cc: David Woodhouse, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Ingo Molnar
[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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: x86: cleanup - rename VM_MASK to X86_VM_MASK
2008-04-23 18:58 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
@ 2008-04-23 22:38 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-04-23 22:48 ` David Woodhouse
0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: H. Peter Anvin @ 2008-04-23 22:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Cyrill Gorcunov; +Cc: David Woodhouse, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Ingo Molnar
Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>
> Peter, Ingo,
>
> any objections on the patch like that?
>
Well, I would prefer to try to get rid of them; as you said, most
userland don't rely on these, and if they aren't used they are just
namespace pollution, and rather bad such.
-hpa
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: x86: cleanup - rename VM_MASK to X86_VM_MASK
2008-04-23 22:38 ` H. Peter Anvin
@ 2008-04-23 22:48 ` David Woodhouse
2008-04-24 3:25 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: David Woodhouse @ 2008-04-23 22:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: H. Peter Anvin; +Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Ingo Molnar
On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 15:38 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> >
> > Peter, Ingo,
> >
> > any objections on the patch like that?
> >
>
> Well, I would prefer to try to get rid of them; as you said, most
> userland don't rely on these, and if they aren't used they are just
> namespace pollution, and rather bad such.
Yeah, I'd prefer just to kill them off if we think we can get away with
it. These are hardware-defined flags, not Linux-specific, so userspace
should probably get them from elsewhere anyway.
--
dwmw2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: x86: cleanup - rename VM_MASK to X86_VM_MASK
2008-04-23 22:48 ` David Woodhouse
@ 2008-04-24 3:25 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2008-04-24 5:31 ` David Woodhouse
0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Cyrill Gorcunov @ 2008-04-24 3:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Woodhouse; +Cc: H. Peter Anvin, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Ingo Molnar
Ok, lets drop these all and forget :)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: x86: cleanup - rename VM_MASK to X86_VM_MASK
2008-04-24 3:25 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
@ 2008-04-24 5:31 ` David Woodhouse
2008-04-24 5:34 ` H. Peter Anvin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: David Woodhouse @ 2008-04-24 5:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Cyrill Gorcunov; +Cc: H. Peter Anvin, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Ingo Molnar
On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 07:25 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> Ok, lets drop these all and forget :)
We still want to shift the definition of X86_VM_MASK inside __KERNEL__,
don't we?
--
dwmw2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: x86: cleanup - rename VM_MASK to X86_VM_MASK
2008-04-24 5:31 ` David Woodhouse
@ 2008-04-24 5:34 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-04-24 8:38 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: H. Peter Anvin @ 2008-04-24 5:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Woodhouse; +Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Ingo Molnar
David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 07:25 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>> Ok, lets drop these all and forget :)
>
> We still want to shift the definition of X86_VM_MASK inside __KERNEL__,
> don't we?
Yes.
-hpa
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: x86: cleanup - rename VM_MASK to X86_VM_MASK
2008-04-24 5:34 ` H. Peter Anvin
@ 2008-04-24 8:38 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Cyrill Gorcunov @ 2008-04-24 8:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: H. Peter Anvin; +Cc: David Woodhouse, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Ingo Molnar
[H. Peter Anvin - Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:34:26PM -0700]
> David Woodhouse wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 07:25 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>>> Ok, lets drop these all and forget :)
>> We still want to shift the definition of X86_VM_MASK inside __KERNEL__,
>> don't we?
>
> Yes.
>
> -hpa
>
I've just posted the patch, please review (i'm to go out of
my work machine so if there would be any objections I read
them today evening, thanks)
- Cyrill -
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: x86: cleanup - rename VM_MASK to X86_VM_MASK
2008-04-23 18:12 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-04-23 18:26 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2008-04-23 18:58 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
@ 2008-04-27 10:09 ` Pavel Machek
2008-04-27 11:31 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Machek @ 2008-04-27 10:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: H. Peter Anvin
Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov, David Woodhouse, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
Ingo Molnar, Rafael J. Wysocki
On Wed 2008-04-23 11:12:33, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 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.
I believe vbetool and thus s2ram uses vm86, too.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: x86: cleanup - rename VM_MASK to X86_VM_MASK
2008-04-27 10:09 ` Pavel Machek
@ 2008-04-27 11:31 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2008-04-27 11:55 ` Matthew Garrett
0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2008-04-27 11:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pavel Machek
Cc: H. Peter Anvin, Cyrill Gorcunov, David Woodhouse,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Ingo Molnar, Matthew Garrett
On Sunday, 27 of April 2008, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Wed 2008-04-23 11:12:33, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I believe vbetool and thus s2ram uses vm86, too.
Well, I think so too. Matthew?
Rafael
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: x86: cleanup - rename VM_MASK to X86_VM_MASK
2008-04-27 11:31 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
@ 2008-04-27 11:55 ` Matthew Garrett
2008-04-27 15:46 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Matthew Garrett @ 2008-04-27 11:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki
Cc: Pavel Machek, H. Peter Anvin, Cyrill Gorcunov, David Woodhouse,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Ingo Molnar
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 01:31:17PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 of April 2008, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > I believe vbetool and thus s2ram uses vm86, too.
>
> Well, I think so too. Matthew?
Yes, though I don't think any of them use these internal flags.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: x86: cleanup - rename VM_MASK to X86_VM_MASK
2008-04-27 11:55 ` Matthew Garrett
@ 2008-04-27 15:46 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Cyrill Gorcunov @ 2008-04-27 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matthew Garrett
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Pavel Machek, H. Peter Anvin, David Woodhouse,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Ingo Molnar
[Matthew Garrett - Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 12:55:37PM +0100]
| On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 01:31:17PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
| > On Sunday, 27 of April 2008, Pavel Machek wrote:
| > > I believe vbetool and thus s2ram uses vm86, too.
| >
| > Well, I think so too. Matthew?
|
| Yes, though I don't think any of them use these internal flags.
|
| --
| Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
|
Originally this flag was bounded by CONFIG_VM86 which is
kernel internal feature and if userland program relies on
this it's a bit buggy assumption meguess. Anyway, i've posted
second version of the patch (don't remember lkml.org link for
that).
- Cyrill -
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread