On Sun, 2004-06-06 at 13:27, Ashok Raj wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 12:22:21PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > knowledge about the system from the pure layout of sysfs.  Waiting until
> > __cpu_disable() to tell the user that there was no possibility of the
> > cpu being offlined seems a bit late in the process.  Your idea about the
> > cpuinfo file in sysfs is definitely right; it has *exactly* the
> > information that I'm trying to present.  But, the current sysfs
> > guidelines tend to discourage single files with lots of information like
> > those in /proc.  
> 
> How does the attached patch look? I would try to keep away from proliferation of
> common->arch->platform code as little as possible. What i have done is
> send a hint for suppressing the control file creation based on what was
> set in the struct cpu, before calling register_cpu() by the arch specific 
> topology_init() functions. No new __arch/__platform functions.
> 
> here is the untested patch for PPC64, does this seem to do what you need?

I like that patch a lot.  It certainly removes any argument about
function names :)

Can we maybe change the name of the new field a bit?

-- Dave