[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC PATCH v1 01/15] x86/msr: Replace __wrmsr() with native_wrmsrl()
- To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx>
- From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2025 22:11:11 +0200
- Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Xin Li <xin@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-perf-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-hyperv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-edac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ide@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, bpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, llvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxxxxx, bp@xxxxxxxxx, dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, jgross@xxxxxxxx, andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx, peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, acme@xxxxxxxxxx, namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx, mark.rutland@xxxxxxx, alexander.shishkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx, irogers@xxxxxxxxxx, adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx, kan.liang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, wei.liu@xxxxxxxxxx, ajay.kaher@xxxxxxxxxxxx, alexey.amakhalov@xxxxxxxxxxxx, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx, tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx, pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx, vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx, seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx, luto@xxxxxxxxxx, boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx, kys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, haiyangz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, decui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Wed, 09 Apr 2025 20:11:34 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
* Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 4/9/25 12:53, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>> 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. 🙂
>
> I don't feel strongly about it. You're not going to hurt my feelings if
> you pick the "q" one, so go for "q" unless you have a real preference.
Ok, since hpa seems to hate the wrmsr64()/rdmsr64() names due to the
numeric verbosity, I'll go with wrmsrq()/rdmsrq().
Thanks,
Ingo
|
