On 06/01/2012 10:21 PM, Sam Ravnborg wrote:

quoted

+/* 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

__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()?

Does the nicely worded comment follow kerneldoc style?
I think not as the parameter is not described.

I'll fix that. (The parameter is simply unused for now, btw).

Thanks for your review!

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat