Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:04:56 -0600 (MDT)
From: Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: Li Shaohua <shaohua.li@intel.com>
cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       ACPI-DEV <acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
       Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6]physical CPU hot add
In-Reply-To: <1113310145.5155.12.camel@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0504120704250.19885@montezuma.fsmlabs.com>
References: <1113283863.27646.432.camel@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> 
 <Pine.LNX.4.61.0504120609350.14171@montezuma.fsmlabs.com>
 <1113310145.5155.12.camel@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 836
Lines: 27

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Li Shaohua wrote:

> On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 20:17, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Li Shaohua wrote:
> > 
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> > > +int __attribute__ ((weak)) smp_prepare_cpu(int cpu)
> > > +{
> > > +	return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > 
> > Any way for you to avoid using weak attribute?
> Just want to avoid more 'ifdef' or 'define empty routine for other
> archs' staffs. Someone prefer 'weak' attribute. Either way is ok to me,
> but if you think the former is better, I'd change it.

The define method is fine and preferred.

Thanks!
	Zwane

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/