On 26 March 2014 18:10, Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > I don't think this is such a good idea. Open-coding a part of that callback > in the init routine can lead to loop-holes down the road:
We think that we are open-coding part of that callback here because it is implemented that way on the first design. Rather, we should have a common routine which should do all the work required when a CPU comes up. And any modification should be done to that code. > what if someone > changes or adds something to the CPU_UP_PREPARE switch-case, and forgets to > do the same in the init-routine? This is not a driver which only 2-3 people use. This part is so well reviewed by so many highly smart people that this should never happen. And if it happens than its nothing but a review mistake. > It is more comforting to know that there is just one single place where CPU > hotplug operations are handled (hrtimer_cpu_notify). That, in turn is good > for reliability because it makes it easier to write bug-free code. And for me that single place is: init_hrtimers_cpu() :) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/