On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 18:22 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote: >> .constraints = snbep_uncore_cbox_constraints, >> .ops = &snbep_uncore_msr_ops, >> .format_group = &snbep_uncore_cbox_format_group, >> + .extra_regs = snbep_uncore_cbo_extra_regs, > > The whole cbo vs cbox thing is a bit unfortunate, I know Intel tends to > forget to type the last letter, but could we be consistent? > > Ideally Intel would have called the thing a Cache Coherence Unit or > somesuch to match the Power Control Unit, But seeing its called C-Box, I > don't see the point of saving the 1 character and obfuscate the name. > I've even seen CBO Box used, which is of course completely ridiculous.
Ok, I can resubmit with the word cbox instead. Still missing is the HA box opcode match/mask support. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
