On 18/11/2015 12:28, Borislav Petkov wrote: >> On 14/11/2015 11:37, Borislav Petkov wrote: >>> > > vendor = x86_vendor(); >>> > > - family = x86_family(); >>> > > + family = x86_family_cpuid(); >> > >> > What about renaming x86_vendor() so that this looks like >> > >> > - vendor = x86_vendor(); >> > - family = x86_family(); >> > + vendor = x86_cpuid_vendor(); >> > + family = x86_cpuid_family(); > > The idea is that x86_family_cpuid() gives the family *after* having > executed CPUID while x86_family() only computes the family from a > supplied CPUID_1_EAX. I.e., the last saves us the CPUID call. Yes, exactly. I'm suggesting that the same applies to x86_vendor(). I also prefer x86_cpuid_* to x86_*_cpuid because, once you add two functions in the same family it's nice that they share a prefix. Paolo > Hmm, maybe I should make that more clear ... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
