Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-207046-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 15:38:53 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>, "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
	"Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@intel.com>,
	"Wieczor-Retman, Maciej" <maciej.wieczor-retman@intel.com>,
	Peter Newman <peternewman@google.com>,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>, Babu Moger <babu.moger@amd.com>,
	Drew Fustini <dfustini@baylibre.com>,
	Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"patches@lists.linux.dev" <patches@lists.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] cacheinfo: Add function to get cacheinfo for a
 given (cpu, cachelevel)
Message-ID: <20240608133853.GAZmRe7d3Q3IpXhD-l@fat_crate.local>
References: <20240606164047.318378-1-tony.luck@intel.com>
 <20240606164047.318378-2-tony.luck@intel.com>
 <SJ1PR11MB60830475F52F359E116B2274FCFA2@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <SJ1PR11MB608331168096BFEBBB311EDCFCFA2@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <20240608121207.GEZmRKl3uwP9Bfrx8D@fat_crate.local>
 <SJ1PR11MB6083ED84B69CABBBD3ED9605FCC42@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <SJ1PR11MB6083ED84B69CABBBD3ED9605FCC42@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

On Sat, Jun 08, 2024 at 01:27:30PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> Does this look like an OK direction?

Yap, actually pretty nice and straight-forward at a quick glance.

> Any better name for the new header?

Considering how we call that machinery "cpuhp" everywhere, I think it
actually fits perfectly.

> While I'm moving those declarations, should I zap the "extern " from the
> function ones to match current fashion for this (checkpatch barfs all over
> them)?

Yeah, you can ignore checkpatch or simply do another patch ontop which
does just that. Code movement should be only mechanical movement, with
no other changes for ease of review.

In any case, thanks for doing that, that looks real good to me.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette