From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/31] arm64: CPU support Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:47:07 +0000 Message-ID: <201208202047.07991.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1344966752-16102-1-git-send-email-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <20120815001043.GD19607@quad.lixom.net> <20120820155740.GA912@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.8]:55918 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754525Ab2HTUrM (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Aug 2012 16:47:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20120820155740.GA912@arm.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Olof Johansson , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Will Deacon On Monday 20 August 2012, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/proc-syms.c > ... > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__cpuc_flush_kern_all); > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__cpuc_flush_user_all); > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__cpuc_flush_user_range); > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__cpuc_coherent_kern_range); > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__cpuc_flush_dcache_area); > > > > See comment on other email about putting function pointers in a struct > > instead. > > There is no need to support multiple CPU architectures with different > implementations, so allowing these functions to be called without > indirection is better. What is the __cpuc prefix about then? Could you just drop it? Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:47:07 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v2 08/31] arm64: CPU support In-Reply-To: <20120820155740.GA912@arm.com> References: <1344966752-16102-1-git-send-email-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <20120815001043.GD19607@quad.lixom.net> <20120820155740.GA912@arm.com> Message-ID: <201208202047.07991.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Monday 20 August 2012, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/proc-syms.c > ... > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__cpuc_flush_kern_all); > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__cpuc_flush_user_all); > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__cpuc_flush_user_range); > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__cpuc_coherent_kern_range); > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__cpuc_flush_dcache_area); > > > > See comment on other email about putting function pointers in a struct > > instead. > > There is no need to support multiple CPU architectures with different > implementations, so allowing these functions to be called without > indirection is better. What is the __cpuc prefix about then? Could you just drop it? Arnd