On Monday 31 December 2007, Andi Kleen wrote: > Mike Frysinger <[email protected]> writes: > > The current asm-x86/msr.h does not actually define anything for > > (!__KERNEL__ && __i386__). For x86_64, it fails to build due to u32/u64 > > types being used. Simply not installing the header seems easiest to me. > > Otherwise, x86_64 will need sanitizing and i386 should have things added > > back, otherwise it's just a pointless empty header. > > Please don't -- asm/msr.h is very useful in user space for rdtscll et.al. > I use it all the time in test programs. can you enumerate which functions need to actually go to userspace then ? the __KERNEL__ markings are a crapshoot at the moment. you must also be jumping through hoops in order to use the header in the first place since the vanilla one wont compile out of the box. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: asm-x86/msr.h for sanitized headers: clean it or punt it
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: asm-x86/msr.h for sanitized headers: clean it or punt it
- References:
- asm-x86/msr.h for sanitized headers: clean it or punt it
- From: Mike Frysinger <[email protected]>
- Re: asm-x86/msr.h for sanitized headers: clean it or punt it
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- asm-x86/msr.h for sanitized headers: clean it or punt it
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] Force UNIX domain sockets to be built in
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] x86: provide a DMI based port 0x80 I/O delay override
- Previous by thread: Re: asm-x86/msr.h for sanitized headers: clean it or punt it
- Next by thread: Re: asm-x86/msr.h for sanitized headers: clean it or punt it
- Index(es):
 |