Re: [PATCH 00/32] x86/msr: Drop 32-bit MSR interfaces

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2026, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > >>> Note that most patches of this series are independent from each other.
> > >>> Only the patches removing a specific interface (patches 7, 15, 26 and
> > >>> 30) and the last two patches of the series depend on all previous
> > >>> patches.
> > >> 
> > >> It looks like you are touching most files twice or more here, to
> > >> first convert from rdmsr to rdmsrq and then to change the
> > >> two-argument rdmsrq() macro to a single-argument inline. If you
> > >> introduce the inline version of rdmsrq() first, you should be
> > >> able to skip the second step (patch 31) as they could be able
> > >> to coexist.
> > >
> > > I've discussed how to structure the series with Ingo Molnar before [1]. 
> > > The
> > > current approach was his preference.
> > 
> > Ok.
> 
> Note that the individual patches are IMO significantly easier to review
> through the actual 32-bit => 64-bit variable assignment changes done
> in isolation (which sometimes include minor cleanups), while
> the Coccinelle semantic patch:
> 
>    { a(b,c) => c = a(b) }
> 
> which changes both the function signature and the order of terms as
> well, is just a single add-on treewide patch.

Is the plan for subsystem maintainers to pick up the relevant patches, and then
do the treewide change one release cycle later?