On Sat, 2016-09-10 at 15:28 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > B1;2802;0cOn Thu, 8 Sep 2016, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote: > > > > > From: Tim Chen <[email protected]> > $subject: x86, cpu: provide a function topology_num_packages to enumerate > #packages > > - we switched to the prefix scheme 'x86/subsys'. Please use this. > > - this is not related to x86/cpu. x86/topology is the proper prefix. > > - Sentence after ':' starts with an uppercase letter. > > - please make the subject line short and descriptive. > > x86/topology: Provide topology_num_packages() > > is completely sufficient, because it's entirely clear that it is a > function and the function name is self explaining.
Will do. > > > > > We compute the the number of active packages during boot and > > topology update. > We? We do not do anything..... and how is that information useful for the > reader? > > > > > Provide a function to export this info for functions that need this > > topology info. > Well, it's obvious that a new function is going to be used by something > which needs it. > > In changelogs/comments there is only one thing worse than superflous > informatioin: wrong information. > > If you have nothing to say, then omit it instead of forcing the reader to > parse incoherent blurbs for nothing. > > > > > int topology_update_package_map(unsigned int apicid, unsigned int cpu); > > +extern int topology_num_packages(void); > > extern int topology_phys_to_logical_pkg(unsigned int pkg); > > #else > > #define topology_max_packages() (1) > stub function for the !SMP case is missing.... > > Thanks, > > tglx
