[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzKCi6pf0RP8HjDQYDsms6reB5AihuCAHEkVJtoOHk_Yw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 09:36:15 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
xen-devel <Xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/msr: Carry on after a non-"safe" MSR access
fails without !panic_on_oops
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Linus, what's your preference?
So quite frankly, is there any reason we don't just implement
native_read_msr() as just
unsigned long long native_read_msr(unsigned int msr)
{
int err;
unsigned long long val;
val = native_read_msr_safe(msr, &err);
WARN_ON_ONCE(err);
return val;
}
Note: no inline, no nothing. Just put it in arch/x86/lib/msr.c, and be
done with it. I don't see the downside.
How many msr reads are <i>so</i> critical that the function call
overhead would matter? Get rid of the inline version of the _safe()
thing too, and put that thing there too.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists