On 5/2/2025 6:13 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/trace_clock.c b/arch/x86/kernel/trace_clock.c
index b8e7abe00b06..708d61743d15 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/trace_clock.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/trace_clock.c

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
   */
  #include <asm/trace_clock.h>
  #include <asm/barrier.h>
-#include <asm/msr.h>
+#include <asm/tsc.h>

Does this change belong to this patch?

It might even cause a build failure until the second patch which moves
the tsc related things to the other file (unless there's indirect include
path to asm/msr.h).

Ah, you're right as I have separated the relocation of rdtsc_ordered()
into a following patch.

quoted

diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/kaslr.c b/arch/x86/lib/kaslr.c
index a58f451a7dd3..b5893928d55c 100644
--- a/arch/x86/lib/kaslr.c
+++ b/arch/x86/lib/kaslr.c

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
   */
  #include <asm/asm.h>
  #include <asm/kaslr.h>
-#include <asm/msr.h>
+#include <asm/tsc.h>

Same thing here.

quoted

  #include <asm/archrandom.h>
  #include <asm/e820/api.h>
  #include <asm/shared/io.h>

diff --git a/drivers/accel/habanalabs/common/habanalabs_ioctl.c b/drivers/accel/habanalabs/common/habanalabs_ioctl.c
index 8729a0c57d78..dc80ca921d90 100644
--- a/drivers/accel/habanalabs/common/habanalabs_ioctl.c
+++ b/drivers/accel/habanalabs/common/habanalabs_ioctl.c

@@ -17,8 +17,6 @@
  #include <linux/uaccess.h>
  #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
  
-#include <asm/msr.h>
-

I suggested making a separate patch out of these removals. Currently you
do them without any clear warning in the changelog which only talks about
adding asm/msr.h.

I didn't want to add an extra patch to the v4 series, but I really
should have mentioned the removal at least.

quoted

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_throttling.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_throttling.c
index 00d045e5f524..ecd7fe256153 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/processor_throttling.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_throttling.c

@@ -18,9 +18,13 @@
  #include <linux/sched.h>
  #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
  #include <linux/acpi.h>
+#include <linux/uaccess.h>
  #include <acpi/processor.h>
  #include <asm/io.h>
-#include <linux/uaccess.h>
+#include <asm/asm.h>

???

Damn me!

Not to find an excuse but I guess I got somewhat tired when doing it.

quoted

+#ifdef CONFIG_X86
+#include <asm/msr.h>
+#endif

I really appreciate you took the effort to do this change the correct
way! 🙂

Same here for pushing it the right direction!


Hi Ingo,

Since you *wisely* didn't remove msr.h from tsc.h, maybe you could just
zap this patch and I will send an afterwards patch set to replace this
patch?

Apology for the noise.

Thanks!
     Xin