Re: [PATCH RFC v2] cpu-hotplug: provide prototypes for arch CPU registration

On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 09:16:18AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 09:09:10PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > 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) <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > 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/[email protected]
> > >  https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> > >  https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
> > >
> > > 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 :)
> 
> Okay, one less thing to worry about. Tomorrow, I'll re-spin without the
> ia64 bits included.
> 
> I would really like to hear from James before we think about merging
> this, as it will impact James' patch set and would add a dependency
> for that. I wouldn't want this patch to become a reason to delay
> James' patch set for another kernel cycle.

It's been totally quiet for a week both from James and from Thomas,
I'll send the patch with the ia64 bits dropped.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!