From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:50:51 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v2 08/31] arm64: CPU support
In-Reply-To: <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> <201208202047.07991.arnd@arndb.de>
Message-ID: <20120821095051.GA12708@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 09:47:07PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 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?

It can be dropped indeed.

-- 
Catalin