On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:17:19AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 09:04:46AM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote: > > Hi Russell, > > > > On 9/26/23 02:28, Russell King (Oracle) 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> > > > --- > > > Changes since RFC v2: > > > - drop ia64 changes, as ia64 has already been removed. > > > > > > arch/x86/include/asm/cpu.h | 2 -- > > > arch/x86/kernel/topology.c | 2 +- > > > include/linux/cpu.h | 2 ++ > > > 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > In Linux 6.6.rc3, the prototypes are still existing in arch/ia64/include/asm/cpu.h. > > Correct, but I have been told that IA64 has been removed, so I removed > those changes from my patch. > > > They may have been dropped in other ia64 or x86 git repository, which this patch > > bases on. > > I have no idea which repository they have been dropped from. I only know > what tglx told me, and despite asking the question, I never got any > answer. So I've done the best I can with this patch. If kernel devs want > to state things in vague terms, and then go silent when asked questions > to elaborate, then that leads to guessing. > > Maybe someone else should adapt this patch to apply to whatever tree it > is going to end up being applied to - because I have no idea _which_ > tree it'll end up being applied to. So, is this how the Linux community is now dysfunctional? Someone sends a patch. Thomas reviews, says it's a good idea and provides some feedback. Author asks questions, gets ignored. Author sends a patch taking in to account that previous feedback. Someone else replies, contradicting the previous feedback. Nothing else happens. What a bloody sorry state of affairs. Makes me wonder what the point of trying to contribute to the Linux kernel outside of the areas I actually maintain anymore is. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
