Len,
* Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
> @@ -62,6 +62,13 @@ void idle_notifier_register(struct notifier_block *n)
> {
> atomic_notifier_chain_register(&idle_notifier, n);
> }
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(idle_notifier_register);
> +
> +void idle_notifier_unregister(struct notifier_block *n)
> +{
> + atomic_notifier_chain_unregister(&idle_notifier, n);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(idle_notifier_unregister);
hm, such x86 infrastructure changes should be submitted via the x86
tree, and you should at least have Cc:-ed the maintainers.
The thing is, we are _getting rid_ of the idle notifiers, not extending
them. The last thing we need is random opaque stuff getting called in
weird ordering when we enter/exit idle state. We want all that be
visible and have explicit, in-source-code ordering.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
