On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 14:34:34 -0700, Jonathan McDowell wrote: > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:51:17PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 09:18:21PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: > > > On 2012-05-22 20:40 +0200, Simon McVittie wrote: > > > > On 22/05/12 19:24, Sven Joachim wrote: > > > > > > > >> and anything that uses libx86 won't work either (#492470). > ... > > > The lrmi backend uses vm86 mode which is not supported under an x86_64 > > > kernel. > > > > So the x86emu backend should be built too if there are any 64-bit > > systems that need libx86 - and maybe for other reasons as well. > > That's not a big deal, though, surely? > > Which backend to use is a compile time option, so this would be > switching to always use the x86emu backend. Not a big issue if we're > going to drop 32 bit kernels entirely, a performance impact on those > machines if we're not. > When is vm86 mode ever a fast path?
FWIW X used to have a way to build both vm86 and x86emu backends, and fall back to x86emu if it got -ENOSYS. Now it just uses x86emu. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120523091244.ga22...@coloquinte.cristau.org
