On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:08:49 +0200, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I think you misread me. If all else is equal, I dislike weak functions. But AFAICT the two standard mechanisms are #ifdef HAVE_ARCH and __weak. Inventing a third one is not going to be a win. And given where we are, __weak seems the easier path than HAVE_ARCH. A followup patch to toss out the now-unneeded empty arch functions would be nice, too. Thanks, Rusty. -- 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
