On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:58:06 +1000 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > otoh, if only one .c file will ever call this function then I think that > > > > all problems are solved by > > > > > > > > a) moving the above ifdeffery into the .c file > > > > b) adding a comment explaining which arch file must provide the override > > > > c) directly including that file from within the .c file. > > > > > > I can definitely do that. I have no problem either way. I can add to all > > > archs too, it's just that whatever way I choose, some people won't be > > > happy with it :-) > > > > > > Anyway, I'll move the ifdeferry to init/main.c then. > > > > Thanks ;) > > > > I'm still wounded by my recent encounter with set_softirq_pending() > > and or_softirq_pending(). > > Well, looking there, I saw we already used weak symbols for that Yes, `weak' is a nice solution. It does add a few bytes of text which we could avoid with compile-time trickery, but only a very few. Plus this is __init anyway, although I don't know how well the combination of `weak' and __init works. > so what > about the patch below ? I like it, but the compiler won't ;) > If you're ok, I'll re-send with appropriate sob > & adapted powerpc part. Sure. > +void __init __attribute__((weak) thread_info_cache_init(void) s/weak)/weak))/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
