On Sat, 2 Jun 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 10:21 PM, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>
> >> +/* Implement the following functions in your architecture, as appropriate. */
> >> +
> >> +/**
> >> + * __cpu_pre_starting()
> >> + *
> >> + * Implement whatever you need to do before the CPU_STARTING notifiers are
> >> + * invoked. Note that the CPU_STARTING callbacks run *on* the cpu that is
> >> + * coming up. So that cpu better be prepared! IOW, implement all the early
> >> + * boot/init code for the cpu here. And do NOT enable interrupts.
> >> + */
> >> +#ifndef __cpu_pre_starting
> >> +void __weak __cpu_pre_starting(void *arg) {}
> >> +#endif
This wants to be a prototype w/o the __weak prefix and the #ifndef
magic and the weak default implementation should be in kernel/smpboot.c
> > __What __is __the __purpose __of __all __these __underscaores __used
> > __as __function __prefix? __It __does __not __help __readability.
>
> >
>
>
> We had used "__" as the function prefix to emphasize that these functions are
> implemented/overriden in the depths of architecture-specific code.
>
> But now that you mention it, I see that we don't really have something like an
> arch-independent variant without the "__" prefix. So adding the "__" prefix
> might not be really necessary, since there is nothing to distinguish name-wise.
>
> However, I do want to emphasize that this isn't generic code. So how about
> an "arch_" prefix instead? Something like:
> arch_cpu_pre_starting(), arch_cpu_pre_online() and arch_cpu_post_online()?
Yes, please.
Otherwise, thanks for that work! From the first glance, it's not
colliding much with the changes I have in the pipeline, but I will
have a closer look.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
