On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 07:28:17AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > The perhaps only question is if it should be "set/clear_bit_in_msr()"
> > rather than having to haul a full 64-bit mask in the common case.
I'd prefer the _bit() variant because it is easy to use in all those
set-chicken-bit cases.
> I'd suggest the introduction of a standard set of methods operating on
> MSRs:
>
> msr_read()
> msr_write()
> msr_set_bit()
> msr_clear_bit()
> msr_set_mask()
> msr_clear_mask()
>
> etc.
>
> msr_read() would essentially map to rdmsr_safe(). Each method has a
> return value that can be checked for failure.
I'm not sure we want to use the _safe() variants by default as it would
generate the exception tables even in cases where they're clearly not
needed.
> Note that the naming of 'msr_set_bit()' and 'msr_clear_bit()' mirrors
> that of bitops, and set_mask/clear_mask is named along a similar
> pattern, so that it's more immediately obvious what's going on.
Yes, I completely agree - this is something I will do after the merge
window.
The question about the need for the _mask() variants will be best
answered after going over the sources and checking whether there
actually is a need for setting more than one bit in an MSR.
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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
|