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.