On Thu, Sep 14 2023 at 15:51, Russell King 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Spotted during the review of James Morse's patches, I think rather than > adding prototypes for loongarch to its asm/cpu.h, it would make more > sense to provide the prototypes in a non-arch specific header file so > everyone can benefit, rather than having each architecture do its own > thing. > > I'm sending this as RFC as James has yet to comment on my proposal, and > also to a wider audience, and although it makes a little more work for > James (to respin his series) it does mean that his series should get a > little smaller. And it makes tons of sense. > See: > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230913163823.7880-2-james.morse@xxxxxxx > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230913163823.7880-4-james.morse@xxxxxxx > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230913163823.7880-23-james.morse@xxxxxxx > > v2: lets try not fat-fingering vim. Yeah. I wondered how you managed to mangle that :) > arch/ia64/include/asm/cpu.h | 5 ----- > arch/ia64/kernel/topology.c | 2 +- That's moot as ia64 is queued for removal :) Thanks, tglx
