RE: [PATCH 1/2] RFC: Prepare PAD for native and xen platform

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 08:25:41AM +0000, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>> Liu, Jinsong wrote:
>>> Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@xxxxxxxxx> 02/23/12 2:29 PM >>>
>>>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
>>>>> @@ -213,10 +213,11 @@ config ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU
>>>>>    default y
>>>>  >
>>>>> -    tristate "Processor Aggregator"
>>>>> +    bool "Processor Aggregator"
>>>> There must be ways to address whatever strange problem you see
>>>> without making this piece of code non-modular.
>>> Yes, another approach is x86_init approach, defining acpi_pad_ops at
>>> x86_init.c and overwritten when xen_start_kernel. This patch is just
>>> a RFC patch, to evaluate which approch is more reasonable :-)
>> Have a more think about it, x86_init approach still need to disable
>> acpi_pad module. 
>> Seems we have to set acpi_pad as bool, as long as it need to hook to
>> native acpi_pad fucs/variables. 
> What about the other approach I suggested where there are some
> function overrides in osl.c? Something similar to
>, specifically
> - that way you are not turning
> the modules into being built in, but intead have the function table
> already in the kernel (as some form of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL or a
> registration function). 

Thanks for the example (it's good itself :-), but per my understanding they are different cases.

In the osl example case, tboot_late_init call acpi_os_set_prepare_sleep to register func, so it works no matter tboot.c built as y/n/m (through currently it's bool).

However, in our case, we just cannot do so. We need
1. predefine a hook to native acpi pad funcs, take effect when static compile stage;
2. when xen init, redirect the hook to xen acpi pad funcs, take effect at running time;
(The point is, we cannot do init twice for native and xen acpi pad, so we have to statically predefine a hook to native acpi_pad)

For the reason above, I think we have to remove acpi_pad module, as long as we need to hook to native acpi_pad funcs. Thoughts?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

[Site Home]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Rubini]     [Photo]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux