[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZRwmj/e+jAXFfvCm@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2023 15:34:55 +0100
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 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>, x86@...nel.org,
Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@...wei.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpu-hotplug: provide prototypes for arch CPU registration
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:17:19AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 09:04:46AM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
> > Hi Russell,
> >
> > On 9/26/23 02:28, Russell King (Oracle) 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>
> > > ---
> > > Changes since RFC v2:
> > > - drop ia64 changes, as ia64 has already been removed.
> > >
> > > arch/x86/include/asm/cpu.h | 2 --
> > > arch/x86/kernel/topology.c | 2 +-
> > > include/linux/cpu.h | 2 ++
> > > 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> >
> > In Linux 6.6.rc3, the prototypes are still existing in arch/ia64/include/asm/cpu.h.
>
> Correct, but I have been told that IA64 has been removed, so I removed
> those changes from my patch.
>
> > They may have been dropped in other ia64 or x86 git repository, which this patch
> > bases on.
>
> I have no idea which repository they have been dropped from. I only know
> what tglx told me, and despite asking the question, I never got any
> answer. So I've done the best I can with this patch. If kernel devs want
> to state things in vague terms, and then go silent when asked questions
> to elaborate, then that leads to guessing.
>
> Maybe someone else should adapt this patch to apply to whatever tree it
> is going to end up being applied to - because I have no idea _which_
> tree it'll end up being applied to.
So, is this how the Linux community is now dysfunctional?
Someone sends a patch.
Thomas reviews, says it's a good idea and provides some feedback.
Author asks questions, gets ignored.
Author sends a patch taking in to account that previous feedback.
Someone else replies, contradicting the previous feedback.
Nothing else happens.
What a bloody sorry state of affairs.
Makes me wonder what the point of trying to contribute to the Linux
kernel outside of the areas I actually maintain anymore is.
--
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