Re: [PATCH 1/2] RFC: Prepare PAD for native and xen platform

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 08:25:41AM +0000, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> > Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>>> "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@xxxxxxxxx> 02/23/12 2:29 PM >>>
> >>> --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
> >>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
> >>> @@ -213,10 +213,11 @@ config ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU
> >>>    default y
> >>  >
> >>> config ACPI_PROCESSOR_AGGREGATOR
> >>> -    tristate "Processor Aggregator"
> >>> +    bool "Processor Aggregator"
> >> 
> >> There must be ways to address whatever strange problem you see
> >> without making this piece of code non-modular.
> >> 
> > 
> > Yes, another approach is x86_init approach, defining acpi_pad_ops at
> > x86_init.c and overwritten when xen_start_kernel. This patch is just
> > a RFC patch, to evaluate which approch is more reasonable :-) 
> > 
> 
> Have a more think about it, x86_init approach still need to disable acpi_pad module.
> Seems we have to set acpi_pad as bool, as long as it need to hook to native acpi_pad fucs/variables.

What about the other approach I suggested where there are some function
overrides in osl.c? Something similar to https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/17/401,
specifically https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/17/403 - that way you are not turning
the modules into being built in, but intead have the function table already in
the kernel (as some form of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL or a registration function).

Instead of just one function being over-ridden it could have some more. However
I am not sure if the osl.c is the place for this either. Perhaps Len might
have some better ideas?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/