Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 02 Jun 2012 03:59:34 +0530 | From | "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/27] smpboot: Provide a generic method to boot secondary processors |
| |
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
| |