On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 05:43:37PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 12:49:47 +0000 > Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > From: James Morse <james.morse@xxxxxxx> > > > > acpi_processor_hotadd_init() will make a CPU present by mapping it > > based on its hardware id. > > > > 'hotadd_init' is ambiguous once there are two different behaviours > > for cpu hotplug. This is for toggling the _STA present bit. Subsequent > > patches will add support for toggling the _STA enabled bit, named > > acpi_processor_make_enabled(). > > > > Rename it acpi_processor_make_present() to make it clear this is > > for CPUs that were not previously present. > > > > Expose the function prototypes it uses to allow the preprocessor > > guards to be removed. The IS_ENABLED() check will let the compiler > > dead-code elimination pass remove this if it isn't going to be > > used. > > > > Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse@xxxxxxx> > > Tested-by: Miguel Luis <miguel.luis@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Tested-by: Vishnu Pajjuri <vishnu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Tested-by: Jianyong Wu <jianyong.wu@xxxxxxx> > > --- > > Outstanding comments: > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230914151720.00007105@xxxxxxxxxx > > If it's not caused a build warning yet, chances are high this is fine. > > Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/b8f430c1-c30f-191f-18c6-f750fa6ba476@xxxxxxxxxx > > For this comment, we use IS_ENABLED() in multiple places in the kernel in > > this way, and it isn't a problem. Yes, for both of these comments, I think they aren't something that needs any action - these patches have been published in my tree since October, and that is subject to the kernel build bot which hasn't found any issues. So, I'll add your r-b, add my s-o-b, and remove the "outstanding comments" from this patch. Thanks. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
