[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F077536C79E0@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:01:29 +0000
From: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
"eranian@...gle.com" <eranian@...gle.com>,
"jolsa@...nel.org" <jolsa@...nel.org>,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V4 1/2] x86/msr: expose msr_flip_bit function
> > -static inline int __flip_bit(u32 msr, u8 bit, bool set)
> > +int msr_flip_bit(u32 msr, u8 bit, bool set)
> > {
> > struct msr m, m1;
> > int err = -EINVAL;
> > @@ -85,6 +85,7 @@ static inline int __flip_bit(u32 msr, u8 bit, bool
> > set)
> >
> > return 1;
> > }
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(msr_flip_bit);
>
> That export is not required. The call site is always built in.
>
If so, msr_set_bit/msr_clear_bit should be enough for our requirement.
msr_flip_bit is just a duplicate interface.
I think I will drop this patch.
Thanks,
Kan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists