On 10/09/2020 15:47, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 09.09.2020 11:59, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> To match the read side which is already split out. A future change will want
>> to use them.
>>
>> No functional change.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
> Of course ...
>
>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/msr.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/msr.h
>> @@ -156,6 +156,24 @@ static inline unsigned long __rdgsbase(void)
>> return base;
>> }
>>
>> +static inline void __wrfsbase(unsigned long base)
>> +{
>> +#ifdef HAVE_AS_FSGSBASE
>> + asm volatile ( "wrfsbase %0" :: "r" (base) );
>> +#else
>> + asm volatile ( ".byte 0xf3, 0x48, 0x0f, 0xae, 0xd0" :: "a" (base) );
>> +#endif
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void __wrgsbase(unsigned long base)
>> +{
>> +#ifdef HAVE_AS_FSGSBASE
>> + asm volatile ( "wrgsbase %0" :: "r" (base) );
>> +#else
>> + asm volatile ( ".byte 0xf3, 0x48, 0x0f, 0xae, 0xd8" :: "a" (base) );
>> +#endif
>> +}
> ... I'd have preferred if you had used just a single leading
> underscore, despite realizing this would introduce an inconsistency
> with the read sides.
You're welcome to change them if you wish.
As always, I value consistency far far higher than arbitrary rules which
don't impact us in practice.
~Andrew
