From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 15DAB1D5175; Wed, 9 Apr 2025 20:11:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744229484; cv=none; b=XKYHXbjmW0wTpoIne58sUZ7hZIsHXXpV1TaL2jNlaELv85V1rUdB/CIuJb8KIRA3PaIrQjW1a6i1yOeJ8/MImn7U4K1tM6SDzGdzgqzrbqU0XX3/vWHelEivhEBKuKiTSCSMRxmZTGLxv2tnqNkc8W7Ja4nqzzy6bPjRSMZWcq0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744229484; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FJm/izdFNTfA1jwBlsdk1jJoTUGHKfakmjnarpokATA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=PkqwHzSitwgHzAg3RdmX5I0ZpoWLnFGpQdMWs3whkZFM2BjVFHUqKqB6NW6ohlmjucpxOVACfn2iodx5X6y9onAYOQU+3MGcXFquEFjotmfgGT9grYa458Js4Y7xYNahsW0gGaD9ZyD2lVR/YFzeWKreGPJ4OfM73QBNOt5l2lY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=D24yujy4; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="D24yujy4" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 71925C4CEE2; Wed, 9 Apr 2025 20:11:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1744229483; bh=FJm/izdFNTfA1jwBlsdk1jJoTUGHKfakmjnarpokATA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=D24yujy42QUc8MzaoYIOhqsAt7S0/2X6yekc52w0gwdRwZBMwmU2nUGsZoW5Ns7GD j85elSFL53Wuzj6UvF8uMMGWEYy3lD+JT9cZ0aqP7gtAES0C3utL694NSMXdxOrKJc 9kIP4IKosSndbxn+SFfqxSrLVm9pBipvXXrP6J8VxMshOu3nGVg5Xag10MUwIq3jdK Ebzxt4FaeSUl2kGyVYg1LltfzCxBxoV7FKWUvjuBBSV/RcEjM/nammCpLTt/GmU9n5 qWMtWEi+RRMn/FMGZcmAdYRRPyz1BTp+SNboYM41JDtFNJnwUWqDkFxGYl1tX5Mz6M qlUYtZ4y1dU2Q== Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2025 22:11:11 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Dave Hansen Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Xin Li , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux.dev, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, jgross@suse.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, peterz@infradead.org, acme@kernel.org, namhyung@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, jolsa@kernel.org, irogers@google.com, adrian.hunter@intel.com, kan.liang@linux.intel.com, wei.liu@kernel.org, ajay.kaher@broadcom.com, alexey.amakhalov@broadcom.com, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, tony.luck@intel.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, vkuznets@redhat.com, seanjc@google.com, luto@kernel.org, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, kys@microsoft.com, haiyangz@microsoft.com, decui@microsoft.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 01/15] x86/msr: Replace __wrmsr() with native_wrmsrl() Message-ID: References: <20250331082251.3171276-1-xin@zytor.com> <20250331082251.3171276-2-xin@zytor.com> <9D15DE81-2E68-4FCD-A133-4963602E18C9@zytor.com> <29ad84a6-b40c-456a-9eed-9887c87dfb38@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <29ad84a6-b40c-456a-9eed-9887c87dfb38@intel.com> * Dave Hansen wrote: > On 4/9/25 12:53, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >>> What would folks think about "wrmsr64()"? It's writing a 64-bit > >>> value to an MSR and there are a lot of functions in the kernel that > >>> are named with the argument width in bits. > >> Personally, I hate the extra verbosity, mostly visual, since numerals > >> are nearly as prominent as capital letters they tend to attract the > >> eye. There is a reason why they aren't used this way in assembly > >> languages. > > So what's the consensus here? Both work for me, but I have to pick one. 🙂 > > I don't feel strongly about it. You're not going to hurt my feelings if > you pick the "q" one, so go for "q" unless you have a real preference. Ok, since hpa seems to hate the wrmsr64()/rdmsr64() names due to the numeric verbosity, I'll go with wrmsrq()/rdmsrq(). Thanks, Ingo