On Sat, 2011-06-25 at 12:04 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > Also, and more importantly, don't we generally do such things via > __weak aliases, because the result looks cleaner and needs no changes > for architectures beyond the removal of the generic functions? We > have excluded broken toolchains that miscompile/mislink __weak IIRC > so __weak ought to work. When we discussed this briefly yesterday, both Rusty and Arnd showed a preference for not using __weak aliases... I'll leave it to them to comment further. The alternative patch that just provides __weak implementations for these hooks is much less invasive than the patch I sent, effectively touching only kernel/module.c Let me know which is preferable. /Jonas -- 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
