# Re: \[PATCH 00/32\] x86/msr: Drop 32-bit MSR interfaces

- From: Sean Christopherson \<seanjc@google.com\>
- Date: 2026-06-30 18:59:03 
- List: linux-fbdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-fbdev/2026/06/17195164
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-pm/2026/06/17185889/t.md

```text
On Mon, Jun 29, 2026, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Arnd Bergmann [ref] wrote:
> 
> > >>> Note that most patches of this series are independent from each other.
> > >>> Only the patches removing a specific interface (patches 7, 15, 26 and
> > >>> 30) and the last two patches of the series depend on all previous
> > >>> patches.
> > >> 
> > >> It looks like you are touching most files twice or more here, to
> > >> first convert from rdmsr to rdmsrq and then to change the
> > >> two-argument rdmsrq() macro to a single-argument inline. If you
> > >> introduce the inline version of rdmsrq() first, you should be
> > >> able to skip the second step (patch 31) as they could be able
> > >> to coexist.
> > >
> > > I've discussed how to structure the series with Ingo Molnar before [1]. The
> > > current approach was his preference.
> > 
> > Ok.
> 
> Note that the individual patches are IMO significantly easier to review
> through the actual 32-bit => 64-bit variable assignment changes done
> in isolation (which sometimes include minor cleanups), while
> the Coccinelle semantic patch:
> 
>    { a(b,c) => c = a(b) }
> 
> which changes both the function signature and the order of terms as
> well, is just a single add-on treewide patch.

Is the plan for subsystem maintainers to pick up the relevant patches, and then
do the treewide change one release cycle later?
```