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

- From: Jürgen Groß \<jgross@suse.com\>
- Date: 2026-07-01 08:33:33 
- List: linux-fbdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-fbdev/2026/07/17197454
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-pm/2026/06/17185889/t.md

```text
On 30.06.26 20:59, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> 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?

Yes, please.


Juergen
```

## Attachments

- [OpenPGP\_signature.asc](https://ratatoskr.run/linux-fbdev/2026/07/17197454/attachment/0) (application/pgp-signature, 495 bytes)