From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754893Ab2HTUrP (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Aug 2012 16:47:15 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.8]:55918 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754525Ab2HTUrM (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Aug 2012 16:47:12 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Catalin Marinas Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/31] arm64: CPU support Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:47:07 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/3.5.0; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Olof Johansson , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Will Deacon References: <1344966752-16102-1-git-send-email-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <20120815001043.GD19607@quad.lixom.net> <20120820155740.GA912@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <20120820155740.GA912@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201208202047.07991.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:J8LHUiClHyEdObB3QiSkolVIdvGRLhCUPo6ivUY+G9W YOIF//D7lBMlue2rh5RtqvOx4Mw4Q5K12zzYpQupWwDwer3fbA FNqhm1GRJw72NF1zbao7p9F4NlLaVbaunQjAiexgrYK/EPudG2 yToa46h6nrmS+hRtaPPAfMSBU3b6QDUx/aHgsPHMKE3A3VF2dg WlgUH91C6BiKmbXsUT8rygVzqQ5PmpJR+60Hg6YqCLFzqZ+63g et1YQ1XugY95So893KOxEgRyUuqhC20E6yhoDElmeXJkA8eaCx wJ3i7f4wlKl+EQXBAy+Qhg7XFDoKA6uUGUybwt/JTbeOsj+xNY Nbiv2sZLJZgZTBk9uBxs= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday 20 August 2012, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/proc-syms.c > ... > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__cpuc_flush_kern_all); > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__cpuc_flush_user_all); > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__cpuc_flush_user_range); > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__cpuc_coherent_kern_range); > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__cpuc_flush_dcache_area); > > > > See comment on other email about putting function pointers in a struct > > instead. > > There is no need to support multiple CPU architectures with different > implementations, so allowing these functions to be called without > indirection is better. What is the __cpuc prefix about then? Could you just drop it? Arnd