* Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 4/9/25 12:53, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >>> What would folks think about "wrmsr64()"? It's writing a 64-bit > >>> value to an MSR and there are a lot of functions in the kernel that > >>> are named with the argument width in bits. > >> Personally, I hate the extra verbosity, mostly visual, since numerals > >> are nearly as prominent as capital letters they tend to attract the > >> eye. There is a reason why they aren't used this way in assembly > >> languages. > > So what's the consensus here? Both work for me, but I have to pick one. 🙂 > > I don't feel strongly about it. You're not going to hurt my feelings if > you pick the "q" one, so go for "q" unless you have a real preference. Ok, since hpa seems to hate the wrmsr64()/rdmsr64() names due to the numeric verbosity, I'll go with wrmsrq()/rdmsrq(). Thanks, Ingo
