On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 01:02:11PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 08/30/2009 12:30 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 12:22:34PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> On 08/30/2009 04:50 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >>> clear_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_LAHF_LM);
> >>> + if (!rdmsrl_amd_safe(0xc001100d, &val)) {
> >>> + val &= ~(1ULL << 32);
> >>> + wrmsr_amd_safe(0xc001100d, (u32) val,
> >>> + (u32)(val >> 32));
> >>> + }
> >>> + }
> >> We presumably want/need wrmsrl_amd_safe() here!
> >
> > Actually, it is wrmsr_amd_safe() because we need the magic value in
> > %edi. wrmsr_amd_safe() calls the _regs variant with the array argument.
> > And we don't have a wrmsrl_amd_safe-one which gets a 64bit msr value as
> > an argument similar to the rdmsrl one.
> >
>
> That's exactly the point. We shouldn't have rdmsrl_amd_safe() on one
> hand and wrmsr_asm_safe() on the other. I have already fixed this up in
> my tree, but this kind of asymmetry should have been a big red flashing
> light.
Ok, what do we want actually? We have rdmsr_safe and rdmsrl_safe where
the last one engineers the 2 u32s into a u64. My gut feeling would opt
for the 2 32bit values instead of one 64bit since they're naturally
returned into %eax:%edx. And in the most cases we need only one of the
values. However, the MSRs themselves are 64bit... Hmmm...
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
--
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
|