Re: [PATCH v7 004/120] x86/cpuid: Introduce <asm/cpuid/leaf_types.h>

On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 11:24:54PM +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> Maciej should first send a patch to x86-cpuid-db.=C2=B9 Then the header
> generated by the tool can be submitted on top of tip:x86/cpu.
>=20
> This is for example how it was done in the merged commits:
>=20
>   49394b5af45c tools/x86/kcpuid: Update bitfields to x86-cpuid-db v2.4
>   300ba891418a tools/x86/kcpuid: Update bitfields to x86-cpuid-db v2.3
>   5e0c3c5e95f0 tools/x86/kcpuid: Update bitfields to x86-cpuid-db v2.2
>   ...
>=20
> One component of this work is that you and the other x86 maintainers wi=
ll
> enforce that "auto generated header" rule; unless something really urge=
nt
> pops up and common sense applies.
>=20
> But a single, yet unused, bitfield spelling mistak is not that urgent t=
o
> warrant breaking the rule from the get go.

I see two spelling mistakes and one in the comment.

Agreed with the rest in principle. Also, I'm fine with the patches going =
in
parallel to cpuid db and the kernel so that we don't have to unnecessaril=
y
sync there and either can be picked up independently.

And yes, the process is already documented at the top of leaf_types.h and
I need to make a mental note to myself that that is the flow with this he=
ader
now.

Thx.

--=20
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette