From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932562AbVHOXYD (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:24:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932564AbVHOXYD (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:24:03 -0400 Received: from ns2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:32162 "EHLO mx2.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932562AbVHOXYB (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:24:01 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:24:00 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: zach@vmware.com Cc: akpm@osdl.org, chrisw@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.osdl.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] i386 virtualization patches, Set 3 Message-ID: <20050815232400.GV27628@wotan.suse.de> References: <200508152258.j7FMw9p8005295@zach-dev.vmware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200508152258.j7FMw9p8005295@zach-dev.vmware.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 03:58:09PM -0700, zach@vmware.com wrote: > I was going to attempt to clean up the math-emu code to make it use the > nice new segment and descriptor table accessors, but it quickly became > apparent that this would be a long, tedious, error prone process that > would eventually result in the death of a large section of my brain. > In addition, it is not very fun to test this on the actual hardware it > is designed to run on (although I did manage to track down a 386 with > detachable i387 coprocessor, the owner is not sure it still boots). > Someday it would be nice to have an audit of this code; it appears to > be riddled with bugs relating to segmentation, for example it assumes > LDT segments on overrides, does not use the mm->context semaphore to > protect LDT access, and generally looks scarily out of date in both > function and appearance. Perhaps the best would be to just remove it. Near all 386s should be far beyond their MTBF by now. Mark it CONFIG_BROKEN and if nobody complains for one or two releases remove it completely. The ugly verify_area 386 bugfix workaround code could go at the same time. -Andi