Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 11 Jun 2019 07:13:54 +0200
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
Message-ID: <20190611051354.GA31772@zn.tnic>
References: <20190517172648.GA18164@agluck-desk>
 <20190517174817.GG13482@zn.tnic>
 <20190517180607.GA21710@agluck-desk>
 <20190517193431.GI13482@zn.tnic>
 <SN6PR12MB2639C5427366AC3004C35CC0F80B0@SN6PR12MB2639.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <20190517200225.GK13482@zn.tnic>
 <SN6PR12MB26390759DB43763D3A482918F8010@SN6PR12MB2639.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <20190527232849.GC8209@cz.tnic>
 <SN6PR12MB263998ECCDF1E345FEB0869AF8100@SN6PR12MB2639.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <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-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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.