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

[Borislav Petkov]

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.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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