[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FC94518.4010908@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 04:11:28 +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 10:23 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
>
> I miss the prototype for this in a header?
Prototype is not really necessary for this. Hence not added.
> And the comment maybe belong in the header - not in the implementation?
>
I think having the comment near the implementation itself works better, just
like how it is done at other places in the kernel.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists