[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201205091413.37664.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 14:13:37 +0000
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"horms@...ge.net.au" <horms@...ge.net.au>,
"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"linux-sh@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"rjw@...k.pl" <rjw@...k.pl>,
"lethal@...ux-sh.org" <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
"olof@...om.net" <olof@...om.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mach-shmobile: Emma Mobile EV2 SMP prototype code
On Wednesday 09 May 2012, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 9 May 2012, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> > FWIW, I would actually prefer merging the 'struct arm_soc_desc', 'struct
> > arm_soc_smp_init_ops' and 'struct arm_soc_smp_ops' structures into a
> > single 'struct smp_ops' for simplicity.
>
> You can't easily validate correct usage of __init marked code from the
> rest if everything is pulled in the same struct. This is why I asked
> they be split.
Ah, I see. However, in version 6 of the patch set, each platform
was marking both structures as __initdata, which seems to make
your argument pointless because we don't actually validate the
sections.
Arnd
--
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