[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <SA1PR11MB6734445986E951E686172419A8FFA@SA1PR11MB6734.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 08:16:33 +0000
From: "Li, Xin3" <xin3.li@...el.com>
To: "Li, Xin3" <xin3.li@...el.com>,
Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>
CC: "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@...nel.org>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Gross, Jurgen" <jgross@...e.com>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
"mhiramat@...nel.org" <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
"andrew.cooper3@...rix.com" <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
"jiangshanlai@...il.com" <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v10 03/38] x86/msr: Add the WRMSRNS instruction support
> > > +static __always_inline void __wrmsrns(u32 msr, u32 low, u32 high)
> >
> > Shouldn't this be named wrmsrns_safe since it has exception handling, similar
> to
> > the current wrmsrl_safe.
> >
>
> Both safe and unsafe versions have exception handling, while the safe
> version returns an integer to its caller to indicate an exception did
> happen or not.
I notice there are several call sites using the safe version w/o
checking the return value, should the unsafe version be a better
choice in such cases?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists