* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Shouldn't we make it a proper function sine there is going to have to be a
> function call involved anyway?
Yeah, so what I think should be done instead is to flip around the API:
make wrmsrl_safe() the primary API and derive wrmsr_safe() from that,
because it's the saner API and because we have 3 times more wrmsrl_safe()
users right now!
And I'd make _that_ mapping inline, which would catch crap like:
./arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h: return wrmsr_safe(msr, (u32)val, (u32)(val >> 32));
./arch/x86/xen/enlighten.c: wrmsr_safe(msr, (u32)pfn, (u32)(pfn >> 32));
and would turn it back into wrmsrl_safe(pfn)/etc. seemlessly.
In addition to that we might even phase out the high/low API altogether, as code
like this:
!wrmsr_safe(MSR_EFER,
header->pmode_efer_low,
header->pmode_efer_high))
should probably use a single u64.
But crappy paravirt indirections get in the way of an easy, trivial restructuring,
as usual...
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
|