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

On 2026-06-01 at 15:53:06 -0700, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 11:24:54PM +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
>> Maciej should first send a patch to x86-cpuid-db.¹ Then the header
>> generated by the tool can be submitted on top of tip:x86/cpu.
>> 
>> This is for example how it was done in the merged commits:
>> 
>>   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
>>   ...
>> 
>> One component of this work is that you and the other x86 maintainers will
>> enforce that "auto generated header" rule; unless something really urgent
>> pops up and common sense applies.
>> 
>> But a single, yet unused, bitfield spelling mistak is not that urgent to
>> 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 unnecessarily
>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 header
>now.
>
>Thx.

In that case I'll send the patch only to x86-cpuid-db.

-- 
Kind regards
Maciej Wieczór-Retman