linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/27] smpboot: Provide a generic method to boot secondary processors

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4FC9424E.9060009@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Sat, 02 Jun 2012 03:59:34 +0530
From:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
CC:	tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	mingo@...nel.org, yong.zhang0@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, rjw@...k.pl, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/27] smpboot: Provide a generic method to boot	secondary
 processors

On 06/01/2012 10:21 PM, Sam Ravnborg wrote:

>> +/* Implement the following functions in your architecture, as appropriate. */
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * __cpu_pre_starting()
>> + *
>> + * Implement whatever you need to do before the CPU_STARTING notifiers are
>> + * invoked. Note that the CPU_STARTING callbacks run *on* the cpu that is
>> + * coming up. So that cpu better be prepared! IOW, implement all the early
>> + * boot/init code for the cpu here. And do NOT enable interrupts.
>> + */
>> +#ifndef __cpu_pre_starting
>> +void __weak __cpu_pre_starting(void *arg) {}
>> +#endif
> 
> __What __is __the __purpose __of __all __these __underscaores __used
> __as __function __prefix? __It __does __not __help __readability.

> 


We had used "__" as the function prefix to emphasize that these functions are
implemented/overriden in the depths of architecture-specific code.

But now that you mention it, I see that we don't really have something like an
arch-independent variant without the "__" prefix. So adding the "__" prefix
might not be really necessary, since there is nothing to distinguish name-wise.

However, I do want to emphasize that this isn't generic code. So how about
an "arch_" prefix instead? Something like:
arch_cpu_pre_starting(), arch_cpu_pre_online() and arch_cpu_post_online()?

> Does the nicely worded comment follow kerneldoc style?
> I think not as the parameter is not described.
> 

I'll fix that. (The parameter is simply unused for now, btw).

Thanks for your review!

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat

--
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/