On 08/30/2009 04:43 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:44:30PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 08/24/2009 10:52 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 01:34:07PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>>> Looks reasonable... although part of me wonders if having a pointer to >>>> an array containing the entire register file in and out is even better, >>>> of if I'm just overengineering at this point. >>> Hmm, let's have necessity determine that. I can only think of %edi being >>> used as an input reg to rd/wrmsr beside %ecx but it could be very well >>> that some other x86 hardware uses other regs too. Do we actually need >>> all regs or a two should suffice? >>> >> Hard to know. In theory we shouldn't need ESI and EDI either! >> >> As I said, I wouldn't have worried about it at all if it wasn't for >> paravirt_ops turning these things into ABIs. > > Ok, here's what I could come up with. It seems to work (tested only on a > Fam10h box), it should cover all our msr needs for now and alleviate the > need for adding yet another paravirt_ops member. > Looks good... there are a few minor tweaks to the assembly (in particular, if we're going to do the single file with a macro then the macro invocation should be outside the architecture #ifdef; second, I realized a better implementation of the 64-bit code after I sent you the email) but I can take care of this. This is for .32, right? -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|