[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120602151602.GB17409@merkur.ravnborg.org>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 17:16:02 +0200
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
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 Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 04:11:28AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> 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.
There is a simple rule:
1) If a function is declared => not static
2) If function not declared => static
With respect to this simple rule your functions shall be defined as static.
And that would not work.
Sam
--
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