[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081011083347.GA31918@elte.hu>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 10:33:47 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Andy Henroid <andrew.d.henroid@...el.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 53/85] i7300_idle driver v1.55
Len,
* Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org> wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> @@ -62,6 +62,13 @@ void idle_notifier_register(struct notifier_block *n)
> {
> atomic_notifier_chain_register(&idle_notifier, n);
> }
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(idle_notifier_register);
> +
> +void idle_notifier_unregister(struct notifier_block *n)
> +{
> + atomic_notifier_chain_unregister(&idle_notifier, n);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(idle_notifier_unregister);
hm, such x86 infrastructure changes should be submitted via the x86
tree, and you should at least have Cc:-ed the maintainers.
The thing is, we are _getting rid_ of the idle notifiers, not extending
them. The last thing we need is random opaque stuff getting called in
weird ordering when we enter/exit idle state. We want all that be
visible and have explicit, in-source-code ordering.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists