[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZRG1NBNbljy2/LEy@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 17:28:36 +0100
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
jianyong.wu@....com, justin.he@....com,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@...wei.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2] cpu-hotplug: provide prototypes for arch CPU
registration
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 09:16:18AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 09:09:10PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 14 2023 at 15:51, Russell King wrote:
> > > Provide common prototypes for arch_register_cpu() and
> > > arch_unregister_cpu(). These are called by acpi_processor.c, with
> > > weak versions, so the prototype for this is already set. It is
> > > generally not necessary for function prototypes to be conditional
> > > on preprocessor macros.
> > >
> > > Some architectures (e.g. Loongarch) are missing the prototype for this,
> > > and rather than add it to Loongarch's asm/cpu.h, lets do the job once
> > > for everyone.
> > >
> > > Since this covers everyone, remove the now unnecessary prototypes in
> > > asm/cpu.h, and we also need to remove the 'static' from one of ia64's
> > > arch_register_cpu() definitions.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
> > > ---
> > > Spotted during the review of James Morse's patches, I think rather than
> > > adding prototypes for loongarch to its asm/cpu.h, it would make more
> > > sense to provide the prototypes in a non-arch specific header file so
> > > everyone can benefit, rather than having each architecture do its own
> > > thing.
> > >
> > > I'm sending this as RFC as James has yet to comment on my proposal, and
> > > also to a wider audience, and although it makes a little more work for
> > > James (to respin his series) it does mean that his series should get a
> > > little smaller.
> >
> > And it makes tons of sense.
> >
> > > See:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230913163823.7880-2-james.morse@arm.com
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230913163823.7880-4-james.morse@arm.com
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230913163823.7880-23-james.morse@arm.com
> > >
> > > v2: lets try not fat-fingering vim.
> >
> > Yeah. I wondered how you managed to mangle that :)
> >
> > > arch/ia64/include/asm/cpu.h | 5 -----
> > > arch/ia64/kernel/topology.c | 2 +-
> >
> > That's moot as ia64 is queued for removal :)
>
> Okay, one less thing to worry about. Tomorrow, I'll re-spin without the
> ia64 bits included.
>
> I would really like to hear from James before we think about merging
> this, as it will impact James' patch set and would add a dependency
> for that. I wouldn't want this patch to become a reason to delay
> James' patch set for another kernel cycle.
It's been totally quiet for a week both from James and from Thomas,
I'll send the patch with the ia64 bits dropped.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists