From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-a4-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-a4-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBADC28DF20 for ; Fri, 9 May 2025 09:59:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.147 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1746784775; cv=none; b=DnonCxTq6d0FpryCaEyC9UL1Yh24+WIb2Mp5IBh+0blMvt4zbzR/rE8wA1wSpbB3ftWjKI0uxvoLp5wHfjflgz+mRGZCZcBHWbzRUX8jBjyAYaJFfWT88e8ifcenG9txUVIF3xzo2Gjq471Vry1W5DfK+UDCDasCg7vUYKQ6zNo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1746784775; c=relaxed/simple; bh=sRMnY+ZMRqJWg+cb8Ifcp0dbwb2cc0Qd6+6wObEIesg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=oKY2GTizQVIH/592heBV7oHJGBdAWsGnLa68hIScnaQrQ2sZuc80cKHMYZKpFhWPF9+3+Wn5T1tkX4WgW1RhX9wgA/OrkU7PySmHJ+8rnMrQ/5NA5gTaB9OM5uZlWcSpVrBJsD4bzl6BAStpjZyzZRL04Xl9JpnAeytsf7p0v0I= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=cacheline.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cacheline.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cacheline.de header.i=@cacheline.de header.b=hhg1sPpL; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=ZRKzLpvm; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.147 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=cacheline.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cacheline.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cacheline.de header.i=@cacheline.de header.b="hhg1sPpL"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="ZRKzLpvm" Received: from phl-compute-01.internal (phl-compute-01.phl.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9F3B13801E2; Fri, 9 May 2025 05:59:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-mailfrontend-01 ([10.202.2.162]) by phl-compute-01.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 09 May 2025 05:59:32 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cacheline.de; h= cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to; s=fm3; t=1746784772; x=1746871172; bh=Knocie7AspkrYXXpPGQii Ms4Xx8l5ahcfQMqyNo5S20=; b=hhg1sPpLWjVgKP82PA1rI8Hbls/CTqCttvg55 G2wp+a5XBHBVUE0LVxOz9n5u6Nlj48Iz4B71vcsN7fD/gOOIIgErlvmTTu1+reP5 8fL51ScMullQT5oKZOjCY6eDNfV2/ya08m6UTqRX3jJeo3fvJoO5lh1Mgbsq77Br CbmsWY62/mPsHtymx3c8I6Fzwb8fh2Zb3tQBKZZ1ariGu5V6dsifukcdkY293i3+ UNAHfQ+QqGNiYTUsNuUkFNizqtZLScJ3NMbeeWeaFYgZOoklEPWpfECRXpDbFLGo 0uW1/M6IrtDIenC7v35NylaLf9YwvOslcCl63MQ1h14JzKzUw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1746784772; x=1746871172; bh=Knocie7AspkrYXXpPGQiiMs4Xx8l5ahcfQM qyNo5S20=; b=ZRKzLpvm3FPpeLZP4B0Tv2cMcnybhzNvwQ/+W3dQ8CCs1NmnTow +JEen2QwNpqU/JIQ5JLWoz3nSBShTv3/L1cosgrRQT/mo6GWoDCScKJN6H4GpfYE chndpf6Z9bcolwsFdsGVS/2mU8sEvt85baQuHcCMjTXsuHfEjLhBryfdm6DLCIFd YHdIMtvQ7+WOkGPudWR4HMI3XtFSdx/aWyoAJaXvXb5/mZZL77rVCkkOI9uJzCMV r8OO1AhCUWa+D7gBkzZOPXAwwjUZ+uP1tkYacx91RGV77SnLCJbwdyEf5FA2DDIo pxgHRqByDWtZ0uQxi8QSxpnb479DxnlVNBQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefvddrtddtgddvledvfedvucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggv pdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpih gvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepfffhvfevuffkgggtuggjfgesthdtredttder vdenucfhrhhomhepfdethhhmvgguucfurdcuffgrrhifihhshhculdguvghvmddfuceoug grrhifihdruggvvhestggrtghhvghlihhnvgdruggvqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeek keduudefgeduvdfhveehhedvfeeiueduiedvkeejhfdtfeeiieevjeejieekhfenucevlh hushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegurghrfihirdgu vghvsegtrggthhgvlhhinhgvrdguvgdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepuddupdhmohguvgepsh hmthhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthhopegurghrfihisehlihhnuhhtrhhonhhigidruggvpdhr tghpthhtohepmhhinhhgohesrhgvughhrghtrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepsghpsegrlh hivghnkedruggvpdhrtghpthhtohepuggrvhgvrdhhrghnshgvnheslhhinhhugidrihhn thgvlhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehtghhlgieslhhinhhuthhrohhnihigrdguvgdprh gtphhtthhopegrnhgurhgvfidrtghoohhpvghrfeestghithhrihigrdgtohhmpdhrtghp thhtohephhhprgesiiihthhorhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehjohhhnhdrohhgnhgvsh hssehlihhnuhhtrhhonhhigidruggvpdhrtghpthhtohepgiekieeskhgvrhhnvghlrdho rhhg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i7c5149e1:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 9 May 2025 05:59:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 May 2025 11:59:27 +0200 From: "Ahmed S. Darwish (dev)" To: "Ahmed S. Darwish" Cc: Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Cooper , "H. Peter Anvin" , John Ogness , x86@kernel.org, x86-cpuid@lists.linux.dev, LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 9/9] x86/cpuid: Rename native_cpuid_REG() to cpuid_native_REG() Message-ID: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: x86-cpuid@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250508150240.172915-10-darwi@linutronix.de> User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.14 (516568dc) (2025-02-20) On Thu, 08 May 2025, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote: > > - native_cpuid_eax(1); > + cpuid_native_eax(1); > ... > > - cpuid_1_eax = native_cpuid_eax(1); > + cpuid_1_eax = cpuid_native_eax(1); > Now that I'm looking at this with fresher eyes, I think below form would be much better: cpuid_eax_native() cpuid_ebx_native() cpuid_ecx_native() cpuid_edx_native() So that it aligns with: cpuid_eax() cpuid_ebx() cpuid_ecx() cpuid_edx() at the rest of the header. Thus the diff becomes: - cpuid_1_eax = native_cpuid_eax(1); + cpuid_1_eax = cpuid_eax_native(1); - if (native_cpuid_ecx(1) & BIT(31)) + if (cpuid_ecx_native(1) & BIT(31)) But I'll wait for review feedback before rolling a v2. Maybe people want to keep having "native_" at the start, instead of forcing a strict "cpuid_" namespace. (With "CPUID refactoring" hat on, and as the above mini diff shows, I honestly think forcing a "cpuid_" namespace, even on native OPs, is much cleaner.) Thanks, ~ Ahmed