* Brian Gerst <brge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > * Brian Gerst <brge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Allow disabling hardware interrupt support for vm86.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Brian Gerst <brge...@gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >> arch/x86/Kconfig | 8 ++++++++
> >> arch/x86/include/asm/irq_vectors.h | 10 ----------
> >> arch/x86/include/asm/vm86.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
> >> arch/x86/kernel/vm86_32.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> >> 4 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> >> index cbd2d62..7c7ec31 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> >> @@ -1067,6 +1067,14 @@ config VM86
> >> bool
> >> default X86_LEGACY_VM86
> >>
> >> +config VM86_INTERRUPTS
> >> + bool "Enable VM86 interrupt support"
> >> + default y
> >> + depends on VM86
> >> + ---help---
> >> + This option allows VM86 programs to request interrupts for
> >> + real mode hardware drivers.
> >
> > So I'm wondering what the justification for this is. People can disable vm86
> > already via CONFIG_X86_LEGACY_VM86. The extra config just uglifies the code
> > unnecessarily.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ingo
>
> Disabling even less-used code that could have system stability impact. We've
> discouraged user-mode drivers for a very long time. Ironically, other than
> being configured through the vm86 syscall, there isn't really anything
> vm86-specific about it. All it does is register an IRQ handler that sends a
> signal to the task.
So is this actually used by anything? Could we get away with disabling it, just
to
see whether anything cares?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
