On Fri, Sep 22 2023 at 08:16, Xin3 Li wrote:
>> > > +static __always_inline void __wrmsrns(u32 msr, u32 low, u32 high)
>> >
>> > Shouldn't this be named wrmsrns_safe since it has exception handling, 
>> > similar
>> to
>> > the current wrmsrl_safe.
>> >
>> Both safe and unsafe versions have exception handling, while the safe
>> version returns an integer to its caller to indicate an exception did
>> happen or not.
> I notice there are several call sites using the safe version w/o
> checking the return value, should the unsafe version be a better
> choice in such cases?

Depends. The safe version does not emit a warning on fail. So if the
callsite truly does not care about the error it's fine.

Reply via email to