Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:32:50 +0200 (CEST) | | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/27] smpboot: Provide a generic method to boot secondary processors |
| |
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
|  |