[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1178154707.5338.11.camel@concordia.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 11:11:47 +1000
From: Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>
To: Kevin Corry <kevcorry@...ibm.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@....hp.com>,
Carl Love <carll@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] powerpc: change topology_init() to a
subsys_initcall
On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 12:11 -0500, Kevin Corry wrote:
> Change the powerpc version of topology_init() from an __initcall to
> a subsys_initcall to match all other architectures.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Corry <kevcorry@...ibm.com>
>
> Index: linux-2.6.21/arch/powerpc/kernel/sysfs.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.21.orig/arch/powerpc/kernel/sysfs.c
> +++ linux-2.6.21/arch/powerpc/kernel/sysfs.c
> @@ -498,4 +498,4 @@ static int __init topology_init(void)
>
> return 0;
> }
> -__initcall(topology_init);
> +subsys_initcall(topology_init);
topology_init() depends on the register_one_node() stuff being
available, which relies on register_node_type() being called AFAICT -
which is a postcore_initcall(). So that's OK.
It also creates sysfs files, which is OK because long before initcalls
run vfs_caches_init() called mnt_init() which called sysfs_init().
Just to be super safe it'd be good to diff your sysfs before and after
the change. But assuming that show's nothing this looks fine to me.
cheers
--
Michael Ellerman
OzLabs, IBM Australia Development Lab
wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au
phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183)
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors,
we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists