On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 02:28:48PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> So this is a copy of the above !SMP inline. What's wrong with providing:
>
> int rmwmsrl_safe(msr_no, clear_mask, set_mask)
>
> in x86/lib/msr.c and make the !SMP variant of rdmsrl_safe_on_cpu() and that
> variant for the SMP case a simple wrapper around it?
>
> static void remote_rmwmsrl_safe(void *info)
> {
> struct msr_action *ma = info;
>
> return rmwmsrl_safe(ma->msr, ma->clear_mask, ma->set_mask);
> }
>
> No gotos, no pointless code duplication. Just simple.
TBH, I find this new "rmwmsrl" interface (the name is unreadable, btw)
silly:
It provides a plain read-modify-write on a MSR and nothing more but
patch 2 immediately shows that this interface is insufficient for the
other cases, i.e. package_power_limit_irq_save() for example, where you
need to do something more like check bits or error handling.
So there we do smp_call_function_single() with a function which does the
MSR accesses and whatever else is needed.
So why add the former interface in the first place?
Having driver-specific functions do whatever it is required and then
using a single IPI to run them is much cleaner than adding that
unfortunate function which doesn't really suffice.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
