From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>
Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
"linux-edac@vger.kernel.org" <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] x86/MCE: Save MCA control bits that get set in hardware
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 07:13:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190611051354.GA31772@zn.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190607163723.GG20269@zn.tnic>
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_<do_stuff>" 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_<bla>" 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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-11 5:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-30 20:32 [PATCH v3 0/6] Handle MCA banks in a per_cpu way Ghannam, Yazen
2019-04-30 20:32 ` [v3,1/6] x86/MCE: Make struct mce_banks[] static Yazen Ghannam
2019-04-30 20:32 ` [PATCH v3 1/6] " Ghannam, Yazen
2019-04-30 20:32 ` [v3,2/6] x86/MCE: Handle MCA controls in a per_cpu way Yazen Ghannam
2019-04-30 20:32 ` [PATCH v3 2/6] " Ghannam, Yazen
2019-04-30 20:32 ` [v3,3/6] x86/MCE/AMD: Don't cache block addresses on SMCA systems Yazen Ghannam
2019-04-30 20:32 ` [PATCH v3 3/6] " Ghannam, Yazen
2019-04-30 20:32 ` [v3,5/6] x86/MCE: Save MCA control bits that get set in hardware Yazen Ghannam
2019-04-30 20:32 ` [PATCH v3 5/6] " Ghannam, Yazen
2019-05-16 15:52 ` Luck, Tony
2019-05-16 16:14 ` Ghannam, Yazen
2019-05-16 16:56 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-05-16 17:09 ` Ghannam, Yazen
2019-05-16 17:21 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-05-16 20:20 ` Ghannam, Yazen
2019-05-16 20:34 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-05-16 20:59 ` Luck, Tony
2019-05-17 10:10 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-05-17 15:46 ` Ghannam, Yazen
2019-05-17 16:37 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-05-17 17:26 ` Luck, Tony
2019-05-17 17:48 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-05-17 18:06 ` Luck, Tony
2019-05-17 19:34 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-05-17 19:44 ` Luck, Tony
2019-05-17 19:50 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-05-17 19:49 ` Ghannam, Yazen
2019-05-17 20:02 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-05-23 20:00 ` Ghannam, Yazen
2019-05-27 23:28 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-06-07 14:49 ` Ghannam, Yazen
2019-06-07 16:37 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-06-07 16:44 ` Ghannam, Yazen
2019-06-07 16:59 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-06-07 17:08 ` Ghannam, Yazen
2019-06-07 17:20 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-06-11 5:13 ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2019-04-30 20:32 ` [v3,4/6] x86/MCE: Make number of MCA banks per_cpu Yazen Ghannam
2019-04-30 20:32 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] " Ghannam, Yazen
2019-05-18 11:25 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-05-21 17:52 ` Ghannam, Yazen
2019-05-21 20:29 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-05-21 20:42 ` Luck, Tony
2019-05-21 23:09 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-05-22 14:01 ` Ghannam, Yazen
2019-04-30 20:32 ` [v3,6/6] x86/MCE: Treat MCE bank as initialized if control bits set in hardware Yazen Ghannam
2019-04-30 20:32 ` [PATCH v3 6/6] " Ghannam, Yazen
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=20190611051354.GA31772@zn.tnic \
--to=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com \
--cc=linux-edac@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).