| Message ID | E1qkoRr-0088Q8-Da@rmk-PC.armlinux.org.uk |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | cpu-hotplug: provide prototypes for arch CPU registration | expand |
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 09:04:46AM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote: > Hi Russell, > > On 9/26/23 02:28, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > > Provide common prototypes for arch_register_cpu() and > > arch_unregister_cpu(). These are called by acpi_processor.c, with > > weak versions, so the prototype for this is already set. It is > > generally not necessary for function prototypes to be conditional > > on preprocessor macros. > > > > Some architectures (e.g. Loongarch) are missing the prototype for this, > > and rather than add it to Loongarch's asm/cpu.h, lets do the job once > > for everyone. > > > > Since this covers everyone, remove the now unnecessary prototypes in > > asm/cpu.h, and we also need to remove the 'static' from one of ia64's > > arch_register_cpu() definitions. > > > > Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk> > > --- > > Changes since RFC v2: > > - drop ia64 changes, as ia64 has already been removed. > > > > arch/x86/include/asm/cpu.h | 2 -- > > arch/x86/kernel/topology.c | 2 +- > > include/linux/cpu.h | 2 ++ > > 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > In Linux 6.6.rc3, the prototypes are still existing in arch/ia64/include/asm/cpu.h. Correct, but I have been told that IA64 has been removed, so I removed those changes from my patch. > They may have been dropped in other ia64 or x86 git repository, which this patch > bases on. I have no idea which repository they have been dropped from. I only know what tglx told me, and despite asking the question, I never got any answer. So I've done the best I can with this patch. If kernel devs want to state things in vague terms, and then go silent when asked questions to elaborate, then that leads to guessing. Maybe someone else should adapt this patch to apply to whatever tree it is going to end up being applied to - because I have no idea _which_ tree it'll end up being applied to.
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:17:19AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 09:04:46AM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote: > > Hi Russell, > > > > On 9/26/23 02:28, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > > > Provide common prototypes for arch_register_cpu() and > > > arch_unregister_cpu(). These are called by acpi_processor.c, with > > > weak versions, so the prototype for this is already set. It is > > > generally not necessary for function prototypes to be conditional > > > on preprocessor macros. > > > > > > Some architectures (e.g. Loongarch) are missing the prototype for this, > > > and rather than add it to Loongarch's asm/cpu.h, lets do the job once > > > for everyone. > > > > > > Since this covers everyone, remove the now unnecessary prototypes in > > > asm/cpu.h, and we also need to remove the 'static' from one of ia64's > > > arch_register_cpu() definitions. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk> > > > --- > > > Changes since RFC v2: > > > - drop ia64 changes, as ia64 has already been removed. > > > > > > arch/x86/include/asm/cpu.h | 2 -- > > > arch/x86/kernel/topology.c | 2 +- > > > include/linux/cpu.h | 2 ++ > > > 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > In Linux 6.6.rc3, the prototypes are still existing in arch/ia64/include/asm/cpu.h. > > Correct, but I have been told that IA64 has been removed, so I removed > those changes from my patch. > > > They may have been dropped in other ia64 or x86 git repository, which this patch > > bases on. > > I have no idea which repository they have been dropped from. I only know > what tglx told me, and despite asking the question, I never got any > answer. So I've done the best I can with this patch. If kernel devs want > to state things in vague terms, and then go silent when asked questions > to elaborate, then that leads to guessing. > > Maybe someone else should adapt this patch to apply to whatever tree it > is going to end up being applied to - because I have no idea _which_ > tree it'll end up being applied to. So, is this how the Linux community is now dysfunctional? Someone sends a patch. Thomas reviews, says it's a good idea and provides some feedback. Author asks questions, gets ignored. Author sends a patch taking in to account that previous feedback. Someone else replies, contradicting the previous feedback. Nothing else happens. What a bloody sorry state of affairs. Makes me wonder what the point of trying to contribute to the Linux kernel outside of the areas I actually maintain anymore is.
On 10/3/2023 7:34 AM, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk> >>>> --- >>>> Changes since RFC v2: >>>> - drop ia64 changes, as ia64 has already been removed. >>>> If this is RFC v2, we put "RFC v2" in the subject, then people know you are sending a newer version. People are busy, and your patch could be skipped if it appears the same as a previous one.
Okay, I give up. 15 days, still no real progress. I don't see any point in submitting any further patches for the kernel outside of those areas that I maintain. Clearly no one cares enough to bother (a) properly reviewing the patch, (b) applying the patch that Thomas thought "makes tons of sense." If patches that "makes tons of sense" just get ignored, then what does the future of the kernel hold? Crap, that's what, utter crap. As I said, it seems that the Linux kernel process is basically totally broken and rotten. If a six line patch that "makes tons of sense" can't be applied, then there's basically no hope what so ever. FFS. On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 05:28:39PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > Provide common prototypes for arch_register_cpu() and > arch_unregister_cpu(). These are called by acpi_processor.c, with > weak versions, so the prototype for this is already set. It is > generally not necessary for function prototypes to be conditional > on preprocessor macros. > > Some architectures (e.g. Loongarch) are missing the prototype for this, > and rather than add it to Loongarch's asm/cpu.h, lets do the job once > for everyone. > > Since this covers everyone, remove the now unnecessary prototypes in > asm/cpu.h, and we also need to remove the 'static' from one of ia64's > arch_register_cpu() definitions. > > Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk> > --- > Changes since RFC v2: > - drop ia64 changes, as ia64 has already been removed. > > arch/x86/include/asm/cpu.h | 2 -- > arch/x86/kernel/topology.c | 2 +- > include/linux/cpu.h | 2 ++ > 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpu.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpu.h > index 3a233ebff712..25050d953eee 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpu.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpu.h > @@ -28,8 +28,6 @@ struct x86_cpu { > }; > > #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU > -extern int arch_register_cpu(int num); > -extern void arch_unregister_cpu(int); > extern void soft_restart_cpu(void); > #endif > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/topology.c b/arch/x86/kernel/topology.c > index ca004e2e4469..0bab03130033 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/topology.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/topology.c > @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ void arch_unregister_cpu(int num) > EXPORT_SYMBOL(arch_unregister_cpu); > #else /* CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU */ > > -static int __init arch_register_cpu(int num) > +int __init arch_register_cpu(int num) > { > return register_cpu(&per_cpu(cpu_devices, num).cpu, num); > } > diff --git a/include/linux/cpu.h b/include/linux/cpu.h > index 0abd60a7987b..eb768a866fe3 100644 > --- a/include/linux/cpu.h > +++ b/include/linux/cpu.h > @@ -80,6 +80,8 @@ extern __printf(4, 5) > struct device *cpu_device_create(struct device *parent, void *drvdata, > const struct attribute_group **groups, > const char *fmt, ...); > +extern int arch_register_cpu(int cpu); > +extern void arch_unregister_cpu(int cpu); > #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU > extern void unregister_cpu(struct cpu *cpu); > extern ssize_t arch_cpu_probe(const char *, size_t); > -- > 2.30.2 > >
On Tue, Oct 10 2023 at 17:23, Russell King wrote: > Okay, I give up. 15 days, still no real progress. I don't see any point > in submitting any further patches for the kernel outside of those areas > that I maintain. Clearly no one cares enough to bother (a) properly > reviewing the patch, (b) applying the patch that Thomas thought > "makes tons of sense." > > If patches that "makes tons of sense" just get ignored, then what does > the future of the kernel hold? Crap, that's what, utter crap. > > As I said, it seems that the Linux kernel process is basically totally > broken and rotten. If a six line patch that "makes tons of sense" can't > be applied, then there's basically no hope what so ever. Oh well. I usually try to keep track of such stuff, but this one fell through the cracks. Shit happens and we are all human, no? Sorry for the wrong information about ia64. The removal did not happen because someone stepped up as a possible maintainer. Thanks, tglx
Hello Thomas, st 11. 10. 2023 v 14:06 odesílatel Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> napsal: > > Sorry for the wrong information about ia64. The removal did not happen > because someone stepped up as a possible maintainer. > Does that mean that the removal patch will be reverted soon in asm-generic and linux-next? Both have no ia64 as of now, and there are already a few patches without ia64 part (e,g, https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arnd/asm-generic.git/commit/?id=2fd0ebad27bcd4c8fc61c61a98d4283c47054bcf). Without the revert, patches affecting ia64 will conflict. I am the person who volunteered to maintain the architecture. If the removal was indeed cancelled, me and Frank Scheiner can start testing and reviewing patches affecting ia64. Thanks, Tomas
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpu.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpu.h index 3a233ebff712..25050d953eee 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpu.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpu.h @@ -28,8 +28,6 @@ struct x86_cpu { }; #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU -extern int arch_register_cpu(int num); -extern void arch_unregister_cpu(int); extern void soft_restart_cpu(void); #endif diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/topology.c b/arch/x86/kernel/topology.c index ca004e2e4469..0bab03130033 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/topology.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/topology.c @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ void arch_unregister_cpu(int num) EXPORT_SYMBOL(arch_unregister_cpu); #else /* CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU */ -static int __init arch_register_cpu(int num) +int __init arch_register_cpu(int num) { return register_cpu(&per_cpu(cpu_devices, num).cpu, num); } diff --git a/include/linux/cpu.h b/include/linux/cpu.h index 0abd60a7987b..eb768a866fe3 100644 --- a/include/linux/cpu.h +++ b/include/linux/cpu.h @@ -80,6 +80,8 @@ extern __printf(4, 5) struct device *cpu_device_create(struct device *parent, void *drvdata, const struct attribute_group **groups, const char *fmt, ...); +extern int arch_register_cpu(int cpu); +extern void arch_unregister_cpu(int cpu); #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU extern void unregister_cpu(struct cpu *cpu); extern ssize_t arch_cpu_probe(const char *, size_t);
Provide common prototypes for arch_register_cpu() and arch_unregister_cpu(). These are called by acpi_processor.c, with weak versions, so the prototype for this is already set. It is generally not necessary for function prototypes to be conditional on preprocessor macros. Some architectures (e.g. Loongarch) are missing the prototype for this, and rather than add it to Loongarch's asm/cpu.h, lets do the job once for everyone. Since this covers everyone, remove the now unnecessary prototypes in asm/cpu.h, and we also need to remove the 'static' from one of ia64's arch_register_cpu() definitions. Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk> --- Changes since RFC v2: - drop ia64 changes, as ia64 has already been removed. arch/x86/include/asm/cpu.h | 2 -- arch/x86/kernel/topology.c | 2 +- include/linux/cpu.h | 2 ++ 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)