Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:50:25 -0700
> Matthew Dobson <colpatch@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
>>[ patch ]
>
>
> This clashes with my "move cpu driverfs to generic code" patch.
Yes, yes it does. It does a lot of similar things though. My patch
does not take advantage of the DECLARE_PER_CPU macros, etc. But it also
offers node-topology info and per-node meminfo. I'd like to see them
work together. Most of the conflict is simply in where we put the
driverfs CPU code. Your patch moves it (w/ additions) to kernel/cpu.c,
whereas mine moves it (also w/ different additions) to
drivers/base/cpu.c. I think that the drivers/base is a bit more
appropriate for the driverfs specific code (struct device_driver
cpu_driver, the array of cpu_devices...). Also, I made the registration
routines arch-specific, because I figured that different architectures
may want to add arch-specific info, and register devices at different
times, in different orders, etc. I also didn't incorporate the
cpu_notifier stuff, which I should have.
What do you think of my patch (other than the obvious that it conflicts
with yours)?
Cheers!
-Matt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 31 2002 - 22:00:39 EST