[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <14274f04-2991-95bd-c29b-07e86e8755c1@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 09:13:08 +0100
From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@...aro.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: jgross@...e.com, richard.henderson@...aro.org,
ink@...assic.park.msu.ru, mattst88@...il.com,
linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux@...linux.org.uk,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, catalin.marinas@....com,
will@...nel.org, guoren@...nel.org, linux-csky@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, chenhuacai@...nel.org,
kernel@...0n.name, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, f.fainelli@...il.com,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, tsbogend@...ha.franken.de,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, jiaxun.yang@...goat.com,
mpe@...erman.id.au, npiggin@...il.com, christophe.leroy@...roup.eu,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp,
dalias@...c.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org,
hpa@...or.com, chris@...kel.net, jcmvbkbc@...il.com,
linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org, peterz@...radead.org,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
paulmck@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/24] arm64/cpu: Mark cpu_die() __noreturn
On 14/2/23 08:05, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> cpu_die() doesn't return. Annotate it as such. By extension this also
> makes arch_cpu_idle_dead() noreturn.
>
> Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h
> index fc55f5a57a06..5733a31bab08 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h
> @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ static inline void arch_send_wakeup_ipi_mask(const struct cpumask *mask)
> extern int __cpu_disable(void);
>
> extern void __cpu_die(unsigned int cpu);
> -extern void cpu_die(void);
> +extern void __noreturn cpu_die(void);
> extern void cpu_die_early(void);
Shouldn't cpu_operations::cpu_die() be declared noreturn first?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists