* Dave Hansen <dave.han...@intel.com> 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
