On 2/15/23 08:58, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 2/14/23 15:44, Jithu Joseph wrote:
> I'd probably do something like the attached patch.  It gets rid of
> 'data' and uses sane types for the bitfield.  It does away with separate
> variables and munging into/out of the msr[] array and just passes a
> single command struct to the work function.  It doesn't have any
> uninitialized structure/bitfield fields.

Real patch attached now.