* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 01/15/2014 05:36 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > >> > >> 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. I don't think those new methods should be inline functions - thus there will be only one exception entry for each. > It would be particularly silly if what you end up with is in effect > to wrap msr_read/write() in a BUG_ON(), which is the effect of the > current (trapping) form. There is something to be said for hard > errors. Right, the fact that most of our MSR accesses today are crash-on-failure, which happens to trigger crashes on a regular schedule, where most of the crashes are 'harmless' situation except that they crash the systems for good. So I think defaulting to soft failures is the right approach. Thanks, Ingo -- 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
|