This is a quick hack to overcome the fact that SRCU currently does not
allow static initializers, and we need to sometimes initialize those
things before any other initializers (even "core" ones) can do so.

Currently we don't allow this at all for modules, and the only user that
needs is right now is cpufreq. As reported by Thomas Gleixner:

   "Commit b4dfdbb3 ("[PATCH] cpufreq:
    make the transition_notifier chain use SRCU breaks cpu frequency
    notification users, which register the callback > on core_init
    level."

Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@timesys.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>

The multithreaded-probing code has a problem: after one initcall level (eg,
core_initcall) has been processed, we will then start processing the next
level (postcore_initcall) while the kernel threads which are handling
core_initcall are still executing.  This breaks the guarantees which the
layered initcalls previously gave us.

IOW, we want to be multithreaded _within_ an initcall level, but not between
different levels.

Fix that up by causing the probing code to wait for all outstanding probes at
one level to complete before we start processing the next level.

Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>

Resetting the devices during driver initialization can be a costly
operation in terms of time (especially scsi devices).  This option can be
used by drivers to know that user forcibly wants the devices to be reset
during initialization.

This option can be useful while kernel is booting in unreliable
environment.  For ex.  during kdump boot where devices are in unknown
random state and BIOS execution has been skipped.
Signed-off-by: NVivek Goyal <vgoyal@in.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>

Signed-off-by: NDavid Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>

Memory hotadd doesn't need SPARSEMEM, but can be handled by just preallocating
mem_maps. This only needs some untangling of ifdefs to enable the necessary
code even without SPARSEMEM.

Originally from Keith Mannthey, hacked by AK.
Signed-off-by: NAndi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>

This patch adds a proper prototype for setup_arch() in init.h.

This patch is based on a patch by Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>.
Signed-off-by: NAdrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>

Add __meminit to the __init lineup to ensure functions default
to __init when memory hotplug is not enabled.  Replace __devinit
with __meminit on functions that were changed when the memory
hotplug code was introduced.
Signed-off-by: NMatt Tolentino <matthew.e.tolentino@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NAndi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>

This patch adds __cpuinit and __cpuinitdata sections that need to exist past
boot to support cpu hotplug.

Caveat: This is done *only* for EM64T CPU Hotplug support, on request from
Andi Kleen.  Much of the generic hotplug code in kernel, and none of the other
archs that support CPU hotplug today, i386, ia64, ppc64, s390 and parisc dont
mark sections with __cpuinit, but only mark them as __devinit, and
__devinitdata.

If someone is motivated to change generic code, we need to make sure all
existing hotplug code does not break, on other arch's that dont use __cpuinit,
and __cpudevinit.
Signed-off-by: NAshok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>
Acked-by: NAndi Kleen <ak@muc.de>
Acked-by: NZwane Mwaikambo <zwane@arm.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>

Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history,
even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git
archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about
3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early
git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good
infrastructure for it.

Let it rip!