> > 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. > 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@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
