On Saturday 25 June 2011, Jonas Bonn wrote: > 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. I don't care much either way, you would get my Ack for both solutions. The __weak approach would definitely make a simpler patch, and the patch you sent adds extra complexity because of the asm_generic_moduleloader_hooks macro you used to avoid having to change all other architectures. Arnd -- 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
