>>> On 21.05.15 at 10:48, <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 07:50 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 21.05.15 at 08:40, <[email protected]> wrote: >> > @@ -329,7 +340,7 @@ static uint64_t acpi_pm_ticks_elapsed(uint64_t t1, >> > uint64_t t2) >> > } >> > >> > uint64_t (*__read_mostly cpuidle_get_tick)(void) = get_acpi_pm_tick; >> > -static uint64_t (*__read_mostly ticks_elapsed)(uint64_t, uint64_t) >> > +uint64_t (*__read_mostly ticks_elapsed)(uint64_t, uint64_t) >> > = acpi_pm_ticks_elapsed; >> >> Why? (And if a change like this was needed, you'd have to rename >> the symbol to become identifiable as cpuidle specific, just like its >> neighbor is). > For code compilation, because the ticks_elapsed in the middle of the > cpu_idle.c will be used by print_acpi_power in the beginning of the > cpu_idle.c, other solution is moving hunk not just the functions to > right place. > Accepted, the second solution will be used.
Just to avoid any doubt - if you move this, please also move cpuidle_get_tick along with it. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
