On 03.11.2025 15:30, Teddy Astie wrote: > Le 30/10/2025 à 14:54, Jan Beulich a écrit : >> On 29.10.2025 16:59, Teddy Astie wrote: >> I'd also like to note that unlike the two THERM_STATUS, >> MSR_TEMPERATURE_TARGET >> (as per the absence if an IA32 infix in the SDM) isn't an architectural MSR, >> and hence I'm not entirely convinced we can "blindly" expose it. >> (Interestingly >> in Linux code there is an IA32 infix.) > > We only perform rdmsr_safe on this MSR, so I don't think there is much > problem with it as I don't expect Intel to reuse this MSR number for > something else (at worst, it is going to not be implemented and would > gracefully fail). > > Some parts of this MSR slightly change, but the one (tjmax) that is > interesting in here is consistent across the architectures.
Perhaps it's indeed okay here, but the aspect needs calling out / justifying in the description. Jan
