On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 01:10:30PM -0600, Nathan Lynch wrote: > On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 10:22 -0800, Keshavamurthy Anil S wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 12:55:47AM -0600, Nathan Lynch wrote: > > > http://linus.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.5/[EMAIL > > > PROTECTED]|src/|src/drivers|src/drivers/base|related/drivers/base/cpu.c > > > > > > This changeset introduced exports for register_cpu and unregister_cpu > > > right after 2.6.10. As far as I can tell these are not called from any > > > code which can be built as a module, and I can't think of a good reason > > > why any out of tree code would use them. Unless I've missed something, > > > can we remove them before 2.6.11? > > > > No this is not correct. ACPI processor.ko driver which supports > > physical CPU hotplug needs register_cpu() and unregister_cpu() functions > > for dynamically hotadd/hotremove support of the processors. > > I do not understand your objection. The processor module does not call > the interfaces in question directly. They are called only from arch > setup code (e.g. arch/ia64/kernel/topology.c) which is never built as a > module.
Oops.. Sorry, its my fault. > > > Please see drivers/acpi/processor_core.c > > acpi_processor_hotadd_init() -> arch_register_cpu() -> > > ->register_cpu(). > > Sure -- the arch_register_cpu and arch_unregister_cpu symbols need to be > exported for this use (and they are). Exporting register_cpu and > unregister_cpu is unnecessary. I agree with you 100%. > > I double-checked an ia64 build with CONFIG_ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU=y and > CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR=m and saw no errors or warnings caused by the > change... Andrew, I have no objection with Nathan's patch. thanks, Anil - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
