Good patch series overall, but I do have some issues with this one:
On 02/09/2014 05:48 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> + */
> +int msr_read(u32 msr, struct msr *m)
> +{
> + int err;
> + u64 val;
> +
> + val = native_read_msr_safe(msr, &err);
I don't think we should use the native_ function here.
> + if (err)
> + pr_warn("%s: Error reading MSR 0x%08x\n", __func__, msr);
> + else
> + m->q = val;
I also don't think we should print a message if the MSR doesn't exist.
This will be a normal occurrence in a number of flows.
> +static int __flip_bit(u32 msr, u8 bit, bool set)
> +{
> + struct msr m;
> +
> + if (bit > 63)
> + return -1;
Feels a bit excessive, but I'd suggest returning -EINVAL instead.
I would suggest explicitly making this an inline function.
> + if (msr_read(msr, &m))
> + return -1;
Return -EIO?
How about:
m1 = m;
if (set)
m1.q |= BIT_64(bit);
else
m1.q &= ~BIT_64(bit);
if (m1.q != m.q) {
if (msr_write(...))
...
}
> +
> +/**
> + * Set @bit in a MSR @msr.
> + *
> + * Retval:
> + * < 0: An error was encountered.
> + * = 0: Bit was already set.
> + * > 0: Hardware accepted the MSR write.
> + */
> +int msr_set_bit(u32 msr, u8 bit)
> +{
> + int err = __flip_bit(msr, bit, true);
> + if (err < 0)
> + pr_err("%s: Error setting bit %d in MSR 0x%08x.\n",
> + __func__, bit, msr);
> +
> + return err;
> +}
Again, I'm not sure if printing a message here makes sense. In fact,
this is the second message you print for the same thing.
-hpa
--
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/
