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

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:

quoted

Hi Russell,

On 9/26/23 02:28, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:

quoted

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) <redacted>
---
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.

quoted

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!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel