From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932491AbWD1XWn (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Apr 2006 19:22:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932493AbWD1XWn (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Apr 2006 19:22:43 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:13980 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932491AbWD1XWn (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Apr 2006 19:22:43 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 16:23:02 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: sekharan@us.ibm.com Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, ashok.raj@intel.com, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, herbert@13thfloor.at, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com, xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.17-rc2 - notifier chain problem? Message-Id: <20060428162302.79926325.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <1146265920.7063.133.camel@linuxchandra> References: <1146075534.24650.11.camel@linuxchandra> <20060426114348.51e8e978.akpm@osdl.org> <20060426122926.A31482@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <1146082893.24650.27.camel@linuxchandra> <20060426132644.A31761@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <1146265920.7063.133.camel@linuxchandra> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.0 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-vine-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > > Looks like the patches I provided is a step backward from where Ashok & > Andrew were taking the register_cpu_notifier stuff to. > > After some discussions with Ashok we both think the following would be > the right direction: > 1 revert the changes i pushed recently > 2 make all usages of register_cpu_notifier to be _init and > __initdata (if hotplug cpu is defined these are removed) > 3 export the symbols register_cpu_notifier and > unregister_cpu_notifier only in CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU is defined > 4 move the hot plug cpu based usages of register_cpu_notifier > inside #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUF_CPU(like xfs's usage). > > I have few questions: > - any problems with the above direction (mainly 3) ? > - Should we proceed in this direction ? > - is it too late for 2.6.17 ? if not late how much time do we have ? hm. I'm leaning more towards doing something expedient and obvious for 2.6.17. It's pretty late in the cycle, and the only downside is the loss of a kbyte or two. Plus I'll be at linuxtag next week and won't be around to help out. So if it's OK, can we do something minimal, revisit it after 2.6.17?