[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTil7QBQOsWIWQOGOaAz76eDqx9clZ1CfL2MR5484@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:15:51 -0700
From: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH UPDATED] sched: adjust when cpu_active and cpuset
configurations are updated during cpu on/offlining
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> I see. I think the right solution is removing __cpuexit but it's kind
> of silly to have different rules on different architectures. On x86,
> __cpuexit currently means "you can drop it if you're not gonna be
> removing cpus after system boot"; IOW, __cpuexit is strict subset of
> __cpuinit. If you define it as "don't include it in the text at all
> if cpus are not gonna be removed", it actually forces you to carry
> more text in the running system. Is there any reason ia64 drops them
> during linking?
The history is that __exit functions are those that are called on module
unload. When a driver is built-in to the kernel, it can obviously never
be unloaded. Therefore the __exit code must just be bloat for the built-in
case.
A system built with CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU=n meets the requirement
that cpus will not be removed after system boot. So why do I need to
include the __cpuexit code that should only be used to remove cpus?
-Tony
--
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