Re: [patch-2.4.0-test12-pre3] microcode update for P4 (fwd)

H. Peter Anvin
2000-12-02T21:57:59Z

Tigran Aivazian wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > >
> > > OK, fair enough. Let me make a new statement then: I suggest we preface
> > > these with MSR_ anyway so we can tell what they really are.
> > >
> >
> > That is much better. Actually, I accept your suggestion.
>
> on the other hand -- that makes them much longer and it is always obvious
> from the context what they are, i.e.:
>
> a) if they appear in the code then it is unlikely they are outside of
> rdmsr()/wrmsr() which makes their meaning obvious.
>
> b) if they are in the header, the name of the header asm/msr.h and the
> comment above their definition explains what they are.
>
> I don't know -- if people really think MSR_ is needed then it can be
> done.
>
> I think my intuitive IA32_ naming was adequate but if you really believe
> we should prefix it with MSR_ then so be it.
>

I really think so... after all, it might be obvious when you use them in
the correct context, but it definitely isn't obvious when you're using
them in the wrong context. I am also worried about namespace collisions
doing back things.

-hpa

--
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."