[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aBsdxY-OLw_bSuTC@lx-t490>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 10:45:57 +0200
From: "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwi@...utronix.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org,
x86-cpuid@...ts.linux.dev, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/26] x86: Introduce centralized CPUID model
On Wed, 07 May 2025, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
>
> On Tue, 06 May, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
...
> >
> > - Please just use a single central API header: <asm/cpuid/api.h>, and
> > remove <asm/cpuid.h>. It's confusing to have both <asm/cpuid.h> and
> > a proper <asm/cpuid/> header hierarchy.
> >
...
>
> Would you be OK with at least having:
>
> asm/cpuid/
> ├── raw.h Raw CPUID ops; what is now <asm/cpuid/api.h>
> ├── api.h Everything else (CPUID model API, CPUID(0x2) API, ..)
> ├── leaf_types.h
> └── types.h
>
> because if I merge raw.h and api.h, the new CPUID APIs (which people
> should be encouraged to use) would be so deep in the new merged header it
> will be no longer visible.
>
Now that I've looked more at it, the above will be confusing for the call
sites, so I'll stick to what you suggested:
asm/cpuid/
├── api.h
├── leaf_types.h
└── types.h
Thanks!
Ahmed
Powered by blists - more mailing lists