[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240621063654.eabkd337tujqs6p2@desk>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 23:36:54 -0700
From: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>,
"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH PATCH 1/9] x86/cpu/topology: Add x86_cpu_type to struct
cpuinfo_topology
On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 05:51:11PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 08:31:26PM -0700, Pawan Gupta wrote:
> > To accommodate for that we can name the vendor specific types in this
> > series as vendor_cpu_type. And if we ever need to add generic types, we can
> > call them cpu_type?
>
> Yes, then that member you're adding should not just be called "cpu_type" but
> either "vendor_cpu_type" or "hw_cpu_type" or whatnot and every vendor can then
> put its own values there.
I like hw_cpu_type better, as it leaves room for architecture defined
types as well.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists