[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z_bQV2oOnJlwbxnk@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2025 21:53:59 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Xin Li <xin@...or.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, jgross@...e.com,
andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, peterz@...radead.org, acme@...nel.org,
namhyung@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
irogers@...gle.com, adrian.hunter@...el.com,
kan.liang@...ux.intel.com, wei.liu@...nel.org,
ajay.kaher@...adcom.com, alexey.amakhalov@...adcom.com,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
pbonzini@...hat.com, vkuznets@...hat.com, seanjc@...gle.com,
luto@...nel.org, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, kys@...rosoft.com,
haiyangz@...rosoft.com, decui@...rosoft.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 01/15] x86/msr: Replace __wrmsr() with
native_wrmsrl()
* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On April 2, 2025 8:41:07 AM PDT, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
> >On 3/31/25 22:53, Xin Li wrote:
> >> Per "struct msr" defined in arch/x86/include/asm/shared/msr.h:
> >>
> >> struct msr {
> >> union {
> >> struct {
> >> u32 l;
> >> u32 h;
> >> };
> >> u64 q;
> >> };
> >> };
> >>
> >> Probably *msrq() is what we want?
> >
> > What would folks think about "wrmsr64()"? It's writing a 64-bit
> > value to an MSR and there are a lot of functions in the kernel that
> > are named with the argument width in bits.
>
> Personally, I hate the extra verbosity, mostly visual, since numerals
> are nearly as prominent as capital letters they tend to attract the
> eye. There is a reason why they aren't used this way in assembly
> languages.
So what's the consensus here? Both work for me, but I have to pick one. :-)
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists