* H. Peter Anvin <h...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 01/15/2014 05:36 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >>
> >> msr_read() would essentially map to rdmsr_safe(). Each method has a
> >> return value that can be checked for failure.
> >
> > I'm not sure we want to use the _safe() variants by default as it
> > would generate the exception tables even in cases where they're
> > clearly not needed.
I don't think those new methods should be inline functions - thus
there will be only one exception entry for each.
> It would be particularly silly if what you end up with is in effect
> to wrap msr_read/write() in a BUG_ON(), which is the effect of the
> current (trapping) form. There is something to be said for hard
> errors.
Right, the fact that most of our MSR accesses today are
crash-on-failure, which happens to trigger crashes on a regular
schedule, where most of the crashes are 'harmless' situation except
that they crash the systems for good.
So I think defaulting to soft failures is the right approach.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
