Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/AMD: support further feature masking MSRs

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 07.04.14 at 12:23, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 07/04/14 10:43, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>      /* AMD processors prior to family 10h required a 32-bit password */
>>      if (c->x86 >= 0x10) {
>>              wrmsr(MSR_K8_FEATURE_MASK, feat_edx, feat_ecx);
>>              wrmsr(MSR_K8_EXT_FEATURE_MASK, extfeat_edx, extfeat_ecx);
>> +            if (!skip_l7s0_eax_ebx)
>> +                    wrmsr(MSR_AMD_L7S0_FEATURE_MASK, l7s0_ebx, l7s0_eax);
>> +            if (!skip_thermal_ecx) {
>> +                    rdmsr(MSR_AMD_THRM_FEATURE_MASK, eax, edx);
>> +                    wrmsr(MSR_AMD_THRM_FEATURE_MASK, thermal_ecx, edx);
>> +            }
>>      } else {
>>              wrmsr_amd(MSR_K8_FEATURE_MASK, feat_edx, feat_ecx);
>>              wrmsr_amd(MSR_K8_EXT_FEATURE_MASK, extfeat_edx, extfeat_ecx);
> 
> While editing this, can we remove this crazy split between wrmsr and
> wrmsr_amd ?  It is safe to use wrmsr_amd in all cases where wrmsr is needed.

I'm against this - the way it is now makes it very explicit where the
extra input is required.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel