[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <74234b63-d9c3-4429-848d-0953fa684d5c@amd.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 09:36:56 +0530
From: "Upadhyay, Neeraj" <neeraj.upadhyay@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, Thomas.Lendacky@....com, nikunj@....com,
Santosh.Shukla@....com, Vasant.Hegde@....com, Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com,
David.Kaplan@....com, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, peterz@...radead.org,
seanjc@...gle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, huibo.wang@....com, naveen.rao@....com,
francescolavra.fl@...il.com, tiala@...rosoft.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 05/18] x86/apic: Add update_vector() callback for apic
drivers
On 8/25/2025 8:19 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 09:06:52AM +0530, Upadhyay, Neeraj wrote:
>>>> +static void apic_chipd_update_vector(struct irq_data *irqd, unsigned int newvec,
>>>
>>> What is "chipd" supposed to denote?
>>
>> chip data (struct apic_chip_data)
>
> So this function should be called chip_data_update() or so?
>
or chip_data_update_vector() as the updates are specific for a new
vector assignment?
> It is static so it doesn't need the "apic_" prefix and "chipd" doesn't make
> a whole lotta of sense so let's call it as what it does.
>
Got it. However, I see other static functions in this file using "apic_"
prefix (in some cases, maybe to differentiate "apic_chip_data" from a
generic "chip_data" in common kernel/irq/ subys?).
- Neeraj
Powered by blists - more mailing lists