On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 02:12:34PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Any objection to keeping the MSR name as MSR_IA32_FEATURE_CONTOL? I'd like
> to have some anchor back to the name used in the SDM.
>
> Any opinions/thoughts on the name of the Kconfig? Currently it's
> X86_FEATURE_CONTROL_MSR, which gets a bit long with CONFIG_ on the front.
> I also overlooked that we have MSR_MISC_FEATURE_CONTROL, so having IA32 in
> the Kconfig would probably be a good idea. X86_IA32 is rather redundant,
> so maybe IA32_FEAT_CTL or IA32_FEATURE_CONTROL?
Well, what I'd do is since we have MSR_MISC_FEATURE_CONTROL too, I'd
call all code and defines pertaining to the 0x3a MSR
<bla>_IA32_FEAT_CTL
I.e.,
CONFIG_IA32_FEAT_CTL,
MSR_IA32_FEAT_CTL,
...
and leave a comment over the MSR definition containing the SDM name.
This way, you have a clear distinction between the IA32 and the MISC
feature control.
But this is just me and I realize we're pretty much deep inside the bike
shed. :)
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
