From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97012C43218 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 05:14:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A5EA2063F for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 05:14:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=alien8.de header.i=@alien8.de header.b="gCNOKqz+" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2391144AbfFKFOB (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jun 2019 01:14:01 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:60420 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2390539AbfFKFOA (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jun 2019 01:14:00 -0400 Received: from zn.tnic (p200300EC2F0A6800B9C6921F36B00F7C.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:ec:2f0a:6800:b9c6:921f:36b0:f7c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id 5F38C1EC0982; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 07:13:59 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=dkim; t=1560230039; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=/4qpiIwUDNEVZoOIA+81jIxl/aQaH5UW2wmLcI0lJNI=; b=gCNOKqz+iDg5I9ne62GUb0I8Z9rBvZfwBX0dZ85/lH5d6XyuyBJYQeKxeM4UcopWn/aiNu rYlatEt03HGZ2EPUm9eHtzFw8oDVkrE+zozxje6MEUf8IBZvMG5UdiDfYD9qIeFjNGirDF YxjUWHUseHF5ysZVmxtukbjF2xb+yQA= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 07:13:54 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: "Ghannam, Yazen" Cc: "Luck, Tony" , "linux-edac@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "x86@kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] x86/MCE: Save MCA control bits that get set in hardware Message-ID: <20190611051354.GA31772@zn.tnic> References: <20190517172648.GA18164@agluck-desk> <20190517174817.GG13482@zn.tnic> <20190517180607.GA21710@agluck-desk> <20190517193431.GI13482@zn.tnic> <20190517200225.GK13482@zn.tnic> <20190527232849.GC8209@cz.tnic> <20190607163723.GG20269@zn.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190607163723.GG20269@zn.tnic> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-edac-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-edac@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 06:37:23PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 02:49:42PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote: > > Would you mind if the function name stayed the same? The reason is > > that MCA_CTL is written here, which is the "init" part, and MCA_STATUS > > is cleared. > > > > I can use another name for the check, e.g. __mcheck_cpu_check_banks() > > or __mcheck_cpu_banks_check_init(). > > Nevermind, leave it as is. I'll fix it up ontop. I don't like that > "__mcheck_cpu_init" prefixing there which is a mouthful and should > simply be "mce_cpu_" to denote that it is a function which is > run on a CPU to setup stuff. So I'm staring at this and I can't say that I'm getting any good ideas: I wanna get rid of that ugly "__mcheck_cpu_" prefix but the replacements I can think of right now, are crap: * I can call them all "cpu_" but then they look like generic cpu-setup functions which come from kernel/cpu.c or so. * I can prefix them with "mce_cpu" but when you do them all, it becomes a block of "mce_cpu_" stuff which ain't more readable either. And besides, those are static functions so they shouldn't need the prefix. But I'd like the naming to denote that they're doing per-CPU setup stuff. Which brings me to the previous point. So no, don't have a good idea yet... -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.