public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	rafael@kernel.org, lenb@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] x86/cpu: Make all all CPUID leaf names consistent
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 09:25:41 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9624a1ba-bc0a-4aef-93e7-7faad87aca03@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z1cajm9oqRZWDp_4@google.com>

On 12/9/24 08:27, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> As for "cap_nr", IMO that is a net negative relative to "leaf".  For all CPUID
> leaves that KVM cares about, the array entry is guaranteed to correspond to a
> single CPUID leaf, albeit for only one output register.  KVM has definitely
> bastardized "leaf", but I do think it helps convey that the "word" being modified
> corresponds 1:1 with a specific CPUID leaf output.

I'm having a little trouble parsing this.

I think you're saying that, right now, if KVM cares about a CPUID leaf
that it only cares about a single _word_, even if the core x86 code
cares about multiple words. So the concept of a word is actually mostly
changeable with a leaf ... for now.

Is that right?

  reply	other threads:[~2024-12-09 17:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-10-30 21:33 [PATCH 00/11] x86/cpu: Centralize and standardize CPUID leaf naming Dave Hansen
2024-10-30 21:33 ` [PATCH 01/11] x86/cpu: Move MWAIT leaf definition to common header Dave Hansen
2024-10-30 21:33 ` [PATCH 02/11] x86/cpu: Use MWAIT leaf definition Dave Hansen
2024-10-30 21:33 ` [PATCH 03/11] x86/cpu: Remove unnecessary MwAIT leaf checks Dave Hansen
2024-10-30 21:33 ` [PATCH 04/11] x86/acpi: Check MWAIT feature instead of CPUID level Dave Hansen
2024-10-30 21:33 ` [PATCH 05/11] x86/cpu: Move DCA leaf definition Dave Hansen
2024-10-30 21:33 ` [PATCH 06/11] x86/cpu: Move TSC CPUID " Dave Hansen
2024-10-30 21:33 ` [PATCH 07/11] x86/tsc: Move away from TSC leaf magic numbers Dave Hansen
2024-10-30 21:33 ` [PATCH 08/11] x86/tsc: Remove CPUID "frequency" " Dave Hansen
2024-10-30 21:33 ` [PATCH 09/11] x86/fpu: Move CPUID leaf definitions to common code Dave Hansen
2024-10-30 21:33 ` [PATCH 10/11] x86/fpu: Remove unnecessary CPUID level check Dave Hansen
2024-10-30 21:33 ` [PATCH 11/11] x86/cpu: Make all all CPUID leaf names consistent Dave Hansen
2024-10-31 10:18   ` Borislav Petkov
2024-10-31 17:19     ` Dave Hansen
2024-11-29 18:27       ` Borislav Petkov
2024-12-06 23:01         ` Dave Hansen
2024-12-09 16:27           ` Sean Christopherson
2024-12-09 17:25             ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2024-12-09 20:23               ` Sean Christopherson
2024-12-10 11:28             ` Borislav Petkov
2024-12-10 11:19       ` Borislav Petkov
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2024-11-20 19:53 [PATCH 00/11] x86/cpu: Centralize and standardize CPUID leaf naming Dave Hansen
2024-11-20 19:53 ` [PATCH 11/11] x86/cpu: Make all all CPUID leaf names consistent Dave Hansen
2024-11-20 20:23   ` Dave Jiang

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=9624a1ba-bc0a-4aef-93e7-7faad87aca03@intel.com \
    --to=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox