From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E86181C84C5 for ; Tue, 6 May 2025 08:48:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1746521339; cv=none; b=CitBkNbYu0TOeyEJsS3IHjFlz5G+UQ5c6zRwWJKbrJdQUdZUPpdJnSTvngjItKuGs0LsqmDUgX85RnJIoVdmATcBUf0ZdxRVq95Uoib27MrkP/i9DhZv8JfqgaCU1Rq017ompLaY4ZAEgkwRYQedoiNRNMo4WLeW66FH2y9Ltfc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1746521339; c=relaxed/simple; bh=nLYg5DLtfDfZDeuXiD8GIXR8IzkvLrzaJvCl6LcRzKI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Ct4nOpQ1VYsnMmRzkqmt+fNUAF9cNPeFYXwOPjoT8KONjyqreHxDvlc34EZa18KJAj/VKQ8UMFyDjws9Sgt+gWFb7E9CFxaiWzbAIf20iLqkq1WPUxTkVBMOw6QIEhrbNxo/KdrRdvxLCAqkfz+GVOPCnF9MDHg69cF4qm+wCEU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=Pv9/k+bP; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=8iRFLSHB; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="Pv9/k+bP"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="8iRFLSHB" Date: Tue, 6 May 2025 10:48:53 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1746521336; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=t0ncUfh0Cvfi5Yo8N3BI4CFhiwN/4omNA+mXfYWBDbg=; b=Pv9/k+bPlBtpKmVGU9/hzxzJz77u8j04mkqEv/TyOu5U68rdH9jEJF13M/6SUQ6+RZP8+6 rAhFHkgocvDAM1Avqr7LgxZpV5r1D+gzLR1i+ggAHyEAgELWGQ+wgGv/AYkLM4zP1yQfzu jSL56ghrU93Q7Qz1q7Vcl1bspriSVWGMnTkqL5i6JE6Bkg2anRgWRm8YBNuNDW8ZKXv34q rgOEWZjPD0gw+siSPbl0eAoFUhL+AttVjmCbSi0o5dEkR/JgKBTGDpPEoZxUad7LmOe9DU hjtV8ra+DwsDVky00RheLCjA8UjVcjp8MzEeUysltJNFYstFxI6voZcyNV9AYg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1746521336; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=t0ncUfh0Cvfi5Yo8N3BI4CFhiwN/4omNA+mXfYWBDbg=; b=8iRFLSHBdgGqHp7NidI5vJX/+lhET0LWZvh/TjlMiZO5YFKU2w4ukCzB9FQZFK6/p7husr qRdNQV2TZdjbnsDg== From: "Ahmed S. Darwish" To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Cooper , "H. Peter Anvin" , John Ogness , x86@kernel.org, x86-cpuid@lists.linux.dev, LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/26] x86: Introduce centralized CPUID model Message-ID: References: <20250506050437.10264-1-darwi@linutronix.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, 06 May 2025, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Overall namespace suggestion: could you please use 'parse_' verbiage, > instead of 'scan_'? Even if a lot of the scan_ uses in this series are > a temporary back and forth that goes away after the conversion, but > still, some of it remains. > > Today 'scan' is not really used in this context, in the kernel at > least, and I don't think it's a particularly good fit. 'Scanning' > suggests searching for something or looking for something, which we > don't really do: we parse the entire CPUID tree in essence, during > bootstrap, and re-parse it when something changes about it on the > hardware side. We don't really scan for anything in particular. > > Does this make sense? > Yup! will do. Thanks, Ahmed