Hello Mikael,
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I for one strongly believe
that any attempt to access an MSR "which might not be there" is
inherently wrong. It implies that your HW detection is incomplete,
which in combination with MSR accesses means that you may end up
accessing MSRs that
Hello Mikael,
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I for one strongly believe
that any attempt to access an MSR which might not be there is
inherently wrong. It implies that your HW detection is incomplete,
which in combination with MSR accesses means that you may end up
accessing MSRs that
Hi Mikael,
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:57:29 +0200 (MEST), Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:29:37 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > * * * * * Updated patch * * * * *
> >
> > From: Rudolf Marek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Add safe (exception handled) variants of rdmsr_on_cpu and
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:29:37 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> * * * * * Updated patch * * * * *
>
> From: Rudolf Marek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Add safe (exception handled) variants of rdmsr_on_cpu and wrmsr_on_cpu.
> You should use these when the target MSR may not actually exist, as
> doing so
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:29:37 +0200 Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The patch from Rudolf Marek which I am posting here builds on top of
> what is already in Linus' tree. Taking it in your tree should not cause
> any problem.
OK, thanks - I'll add this then I'll un-revert the patch
Hi Andrew,
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:22:15 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:18:23 +0200 Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Add support for _safe (exception handled) variants of rdmsr_on_cpu
> > and wrmsr_on_cpu. This is needed for the upcoming coretemp hardware
> >
Hi Andrew,
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:22:15 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:18:23 +0200 Jean Delvare [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Add support for _safe (exception handled) variants of rdmsr_on_cpu
and wrmsr_on_cpu. This is needed for the upcoming coretemp hardware
monitoring
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:29:37 +0200 Jean Delvare [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The patch from Rudolf Marek which I am posting here builds on top of
what is already in Linus' tree. Taking it in your tree should not cause
any problem.
OK, thanks - I'll add this then I'll un-revert the patch which
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:29:37 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
* * * * * Updated patch * * * * *
From: Rudolf Marek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Add safe (exception handled) variants of rdmsr_on_cpu and wrmsr_on_cpu.
You should use these when the target MSR may not actually exist, as
doing so could trigger
Hi Mikael,
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:57:29 +0200 (MEST), Mikael Pettersson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:29:37 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
* * * * * Updated patch * * * * *
From: Rudolf Marek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Add safe (exception handled) variants of rdmsr_on_cpu and wrmsr_on_cpu.
You
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:18:23 +0200 Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Add support for _safe (exception handled) variants of rdmsr_on_cpu
> and wrmsr_on_cpu. This is needed for the upcoming coretemp hardware
> monitoring driver, which might step into non-existing (poorly
> documented)
From: Rudolf Marek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Add support for _safe (exception handled) variants of rdmsr_on_cpu
and wrmsr_on_cpu. This is needed for the upcoming coretemp hardware
monitoring driver, which might step into non-existing (poorly
documented) MSR.
Signed-off-by: Rudolf Marek <[EMAIL
From: Rudolf Marek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Add support for _safe (exception handled) variants of rdmsr_on_cpu
and wrmsr_on_cpu. This is needed for the upcoming coretemp hardware
monitoring driver, which might step into non-existing (poorly
documented) MSR.
Signed-off-by: Rudolf Marek [EMAIL
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:18:23 +0200 Jean Delvare [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Add support for _safe (exception handled) variants of rdmsr_on_cpu
and wrmsr_on_cpu. This is needed for the upcoming coretemp hardware
monitoring driver, which might step into non-existing (poorly
documented) MSR.
14 matches
Mail list logo
