On Tuesday 24 March 2009 05:20:44 pm Yinghai Lu wrote:
> Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Tuesday 24 March 2009 05:08:12 pm Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> This patch makes acpi_init() call acpi_debug_init() directly.
> >>> Previously, both were subsys_initcalls. acpi_debug_init()
> >>> must happen after acpi_init(), and it's better to call it
> >>> explicitly rather than rely on link ordering.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@xxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/acpi/bus.c | 1 +
> >>> drivers/acpi/debug.c | 14 ++++++--------
> >>> drivers/acpi/internal.h | 6 ++++++
> >>> 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/bus.c b/drivers/acpi/bus.c
> >>> index c133072..f32cfd6 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/acpi/bus.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/bus.c
> >>> @@ -883,6 +883,7 @@ static int __init acpi_init(void)
> >>> acpi_ec_init();
> >>> acpi_power_init();
> >>> acpi_system_init();
> >>> + acpi_debug_init();
> >>> return result;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/debug.c b/drivers/acpi/debug.c
> >>> index 20223cb..9cb189f 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/acpi/debug.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/debug.c
> >>> @@ -297,17 +297,15 @@ acpi_system_write_debug(struct file *file,
> >>>
> >>> return count;
> >>> }
> >>> +#endif
> >>>
> >>> -static int __init acpi_debug_init(void)
> >>> +int __init acpi_debug_init(void)
> >>> {
> >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS
> >>> struct proc_dir_entry *entry;
> >>> int error = 0;
> >>> char *name;
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>> - if (acpi_disabled)
> >>> - return 0;
> >>> -
> >>> /* 'debug_layer' [R/W] */
> >>> name = ACPI_SYSTEM_FILE_DEBUG_LAYER;
> >>> entry =
> >>> @@ -338,7 +336,7 @@ static int __init acpi_debug_init(void)
> >>> remove_proc_entry(ACPI_SYSTEM_FILE_DEBUG_LAYER, acpi_root_dir);
> >>> error = -ENODEV;
> >>> goto Done;
> >>> -}
> >>> -
> >>> -subsys_initcall(acpi_debug_init);
> >>> +#else
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> #endif
> >>> +}
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/internal.h b/drivers/acpi/internal.h
> >>> index 4a35f6e..44b8402 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/acpi/internal.h
> >>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/internal.h
> >>> @@ -3,6 +3,12 @@
> >>> int acpi_scan_init(void);
> >>> int acpi_system_init(void);
> >>>
> >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_DEBUG
> >> ==> #if defined(CONFIG_ACPI_DEBUG) && defined(CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS)
> >
> > I could do that, and leave the #ifdefs in debug.c as they were,
> > but I thought it was cleaner to make it so that if we compile debug.c
> > (i.e., CONFIG_ACPI_DEBUG=y), it always provides acpi_debug_init().
> >
> > I moved the #ifdefs in debug.c so that acpi_debug_init() is a no-op
> > if CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS=n.
> >
> > So I think my patch already addressed your concern, but let me
> > know if not.
>
> you had two copy
> +#else
> > > + return 0;
> > > #endif
> ...
>
> with
> #if defined(CONFIG_ACPI_DEBUG) && defined(CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS)
> in .h
>
> you only need to do
> >>> -
> >>> - if (acpi_disabled)
> >>> - return 0;
> >>> -
> >>> /* 'debug_layer' [R/W] */
> >>> name = ACPI_SYSTEM_FILE_DEBUG_LAYER;
> >>> entry =
> >>> @@ -338,7 +336,7 @@ static int __init acpi_debug_init(void)
> >>> remove_proc_entry(ACPI_SYSTEM_FILE_DEBUG_LAYER, acpi_root_dir);
> >>> error = -ENODEV;
> >>> goto Done;
> >>> -}
> >>> -
> >>> -subsys_initcall(acpi_debug_init);
>
> in debug.c
>
> totally you will have less one #ifdef
You're right that I have two "#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS" in debug.c,
and I could get away with only one if I used
#if defined(CONFIG_ACPI_DEBUG) && defined(CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS)
in internal.h. I actually did that in my first version of the patch.
However, I thought it was a bit ugly to put the CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS
stuff in internal.h. That would mean a reader of internal.h has
to know about the details of how debug.c is implemented. It is
completely non-obvious why a definition of acpi_debug_init() should
depend on CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS, so the reader would have to go dig
through debug.c to figure it out. With my patch, the reader only
has to know "CONFIG_ACPI_DEBUG enables the build of debug.c."
If I understand you correctly, you're raising a style issue, and
there's no functional problem either way. Right?
Bjorn
--
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
