Message-ID: <4FC9424E.9060009@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 03:59:34 +0530
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120424 Thunderbird/12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
CC: tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        rusty@rustcorp.com.au, mingo@kernel.org, yong.zhang0@gmail.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com, rjw@sisk.pl,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
        Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/27] smpboot: Provide a generic method to boot	secondary
 processors
References: <20120601090952.31979.24799.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com> <20120601091008.31979.93586.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com> <20120601165113.GA18870@merkur.ravnborg.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120601165113.GA18870@merkur.ravnborg.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1774
Lines: 49

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
> 
> __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

--
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/