On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:29:37 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > * * * * * Updated patch * * * * * > > From: Rudolf Marek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Add safe (exception handled) variants of rdmsr_on_cpu and wrmsr_on_cpu. > You should use these when the target MSR may not actually exist, as > doing so could trigger an exception which the regular functions do not > handle. The safe variants are slower, though. > > The upcoming coretemp hardware monitoring driver will need this.
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I for one strongly believe that any attempt to access an MSR "which might not be there" is inherently wrong. It implies that your HW detection is incomplete, which in combination with MSR accesses means that you may end up accessing MSRs that aren't at all what you think they should be. Who supplies these imprecise MSR definitions anyway? Intel manuals? ACPI? /Mikael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
