On 11/03/2014 07:27 AM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: >>> This isn't unreasonable but there are drivers with userspace helpers that >>> use iopl/ioperm type functionality where you should be doing a SELECT of >>> X86_IOPORT. The one that comes to mind is the uvesa driver. From a quick >>> scan it may these days be the only mainstream one that needs the select >>> adding. >> >> Should kernel drivers really express dependencies that only their >> (current instances of) corresponding userspace components need? >> Something seems wrong about that. > > uvesafb will always need X86_IOPORT. It's kind of implicit in the design. > I'm not suggesting that fbdev should select X86_IOPORT but in the uvesafb > case at least it's completely useless to have one and not the other. Are there any users of uvesafb at all? Last time I changed that driver, I tried to test it, and I was unable to find a copy of the userspace helper. --Andy > >> IO_BITMAP_LONGS already gets defined to (0/sizeof(long)). And as far as >> I can tell, that would only work for init_tss_io, not anything else. >> Even then, that would only work with a zero-size array left around in >> tss_struct, which doesn't seem appropriate. The remaining ifdefs wrap >> code that GCC could not constant-fold away, and making that code >> constant-foldable seems significantly more invasive than the ifdefs. > > OK > _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
