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 B4BF827E7D1 for ; Thu, 15 May 2025 21:04:54 +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=1747343096; cv=none; b=kEzthOPBi/eWIRpN0sb2gDi29MFV9Q60usMTtGY++LHt2sViyhlVJ50gRxmMMJ4ayN0oggQEZieV+c/bl0o5EQb5IB8MXRwMyGVoelpmhulu9Up0chelJO8afuMgrI/KLIvPngJYcB/XM55AjKBxTbYbqtYfgwx6M69JzarzrrE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1747343096; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vqHtebI7QcDre+rqXrx1fd4+d1PuHG7I6gqvBzMo28k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=OcDEfdODooQwph6g5hFE342drrNey7GZW9T+r60VOqGYy68JZnb42qGceAs4ER5SzuYLbz9wMeFC3t1IBy5lB6muaXGf+MVJQZpHyQzDkrMihrAjQtGyf7TqNXXRS4+QOXwwKy/SRM4eGvdSDLzDbIjt1SkkZeSQcmTJo4Tb6PI= 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=PHxMCsn1; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=9wN4uIKS; 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="PHxMCsn1"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="9wN4uIKS" Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 23:04:51 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1747343093; 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=RxCCQBBFFS13nbaq8f3f0eNesgOx+v3fCu1reEuH5qg=; b=PHxMCsn1ZLdG1RQDYmXT09zutdiWS+q91219uez+upcSZ01rXk6+j2dCTsWnkDkO1PkhQJ QF6pjbKTLq8pegX8Up7u8cRL9bxcsmQiPHq+NGJw3QDRtcW1gZtoahx/MqcH2Bep1qJyfb 4KDcTvZgns5jcKLhHnfJrAIkhnb7nQYD/y19M7LBuZBYR1pvBuOeefklrcnftC2PgMpFMd 5n9Zwio13tA551MG0YAZLTZ77UhqUsw7jA7d9OvQdKAMR+EGtaOvJqvsqq9Q+4FePbYoHr 9dmNzzFOAJXqHUHX60MKEc1BAGwH2YFVaINlaa5OIIX6WYtMC4etFTZbo37svA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1747343093; 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=RxCCQBBFFS13nbaq8f3f0eNesgOx+v3fCu1reEuH5qg=; b=9wN4uIKS4olkIbfYPJ7CXv/1zd9fyQKNS8l73eOMfjwkaFqhkqlIUZFfZNgCq3KMQ7R4E7 zXJ5Bl6MQvkGR4Dw== From: "Ahmed S. Darwish" To: Sohil Mehta 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 07/26] x86/cpuid: Introduce debugfs 'x86/scanned_cpuid/[0-ncpus]' Message-ID: References: <20250506050437.10264-1-darwi@linutronix.de> <20250506050437.10264-8-darwi@linutronix.de> <6e9286b1-6d76-4f30-97bd-8fcc3ca8f211@intel.com> 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: <6e9286b1-6d76-4f30-97bd-8fcc3ca8f211@intel.com> Hi Sohil, On Tue, 13 May 2025, Sohil Mehta wrote: > > I tried out the patches. > Thanks a lot for giving all of this a test run! > The debugfs hierarchy mentioned here doesn't match the code. Indeed. I've added the extra level "cpus/" folder at a later phase and forgot updating the changelog. > > The code actually builds: > x86/scanned_cpuid/cpus/[0-ncpus]. > > Can we simplify it to below? The "scanned_" part seems unnecessary. > x86/cpuid/[0-ncpus] > > I would also suggest slight changes to the formatting to make it easier > to read. > 1) Indent for the printed register values. > 2) Move the * to the front of the value to make it more prominent. > All the suggestions above are very sensible, so I'll do 'em in v2. Thanks, ~ Ahmed