Re: [PATCH] cpu-hotplug: provide prototypes for arch CPU registration

[Russell King (Oracle)]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > 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.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!