Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] x86/msr: Convert a native_wrmsr() use to native_wrmsrq()

[Ingo Molnar]

* Xin Li <xin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> >>> On 5/15/2025 10:54 AM, Xin Li wrote:
> >>> On 5/15/2025 8:27 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>> * Xin Li (Intel) <xin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> Convert a native_wrmsr() use to native_wrmsrq() to zap meaningless type
> >>>>> conversions when a u64 MSR value is splitted into two u32.
> >>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> BTW., at this point we should probably just replace
> >>>> sev_es_wr_ghcb_msr() calls with direct calls to:
> >>>> 
> >>>>     native_wrmsrq(MSR_AMD64_SEV_ES_GHCB, ...);
> >>>> 
> >>>> as sev_es_wr_ghcb_msr() is now basically an open-coded native_wrmsrq().
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> I thought about it, however it looks to me that current code prefers not
> >>> to spread MSR_AMD64_SEV_ES_GHCB in 17 callsites.  And anyway it's a
> >>> __always_inline function.
> >>> 
> >>> But as you have asked, I will make the change unless someone objects.
> >> 
> >> Hi Ingo,
> >> 
> >> I took a further look and found that we can't simply replace
> >> sev_es_wr_ghcb_msr() with native_wrmsrq(MSR_AMD64_SEV_ES_GHCB, ...).
> >> 
> >> There are two sev_es_wr_ghcb_msr() definitions.  One is defined in
> >> arch/x86/boot/compressed/sev.h and it references boot_wrmsr() defined in
> >> arch/x86/boot/msr.h to do MSR write.
> > 
> > Ah, indeed, it's also a startup code wrapper, which wrmsrq() doesn't
> > have at the moment. Fair enough.
> 
> So you want me to drop this patch then?

No, patch #3 is fine as-is in its -v1 form, I was wrong.

Thanks,

	Ingo