On March 31, 2025 3:17:30 AM PDT, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote: > >* Xin Li (Intel) <x...@zytor.com> wrote: > >> - __wrmsr (MSR_AMD_DBG_EXTN_CFG, val | 3ULL << 3, val >> 32); >> + native_wrmsrl(MSR_AMD_DBG_EXTN_CFG, val | 3ULL << 3); > >This is an improvement. > >> - __wrmsr (MSR_IA32_PQR_ASSOC, rmid_p, plr->closid); >> + native_wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_PQR_ASSOC, (u64)plr->closid << 32 | rmid_p); > >> - __wrmsr (MSR_IA32_PQR_ASSOC, rmid_p, closid_p); >> + native_wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_PQR_ASSOC, (u64)closid_p << 32 | rmid_p); > >This is not an improvement. > >Please provide a native_wrmsrl() API variant where natural [rmid_p, closid_p] >high/lo parameters can be used, without the shift-uglification... > >Thanks, > > Ingo
Directing this question primarily to Ingo, who is more than anyone else the namespace consistency guardian: On the subject of msr function naming ... *msrl() has always been misleading. The -l suffix usually means 32 bits; sometimes it means the C type "long" (which in the kernel is used instead of size_t/uintptr_t, which might end up being "fun" when 128-bit architectures appear some time this century), but for a fixed 64-but type we normally use -q. Should we rename the *msrl() functions to *msrq() as part of this overhaul?
