Re: coretemp - take3

[Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@sw.ru>]

On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 07:31:11AM +0100, Rudolf Marek wrote:
> Maybe OpenVZ needs both safe and unsafe variants in msr-on-cpu?

Frankly I don't understand when one should use rdmsr_safe() instead of
rdmsr(). p4-clockmod driver worked fine with plain rdmsr/wrmsr.
For general education, why this driver uses _safe functions?

What's wrong with http://ssh.cz/~ruik/patches/add-msr-io-safe.patch
is:
a) naming: _on_cpu is suffix and thus should be last
	FOO(...) => FOO_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, ...)

b) static qualifier should be first.
c) coding style in wrmsr_on_cpu/rdmsr_on_cpu/...

	static int foo(...)
	{
		...
	}

d) +#include <linux/errno.h>

	what for? those dummy inlines don't include -E*

> >> On URL bellow is current version of coretemp driver.
> >>
> >> http://ssh.cz/~ruik/patches/
> >>
> >> What was fixed? I fixed the issues Jean pointed out, I created separate patch
> >> for ...msr_safe stuff.
> >>   
> > In arch/i386/lib/msr-on-cpu.c, I'm not sure if you really need to create
> > 2 versions of the functions (safe and unsafe). Anyway, no one uses these
> > functions in the kernel yet, so I think you can simply convert them to
> > safe versions.
> 
> 
> -snip-
> 
> I will answer the rest in the evening.