On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:07, Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
It's not inventing a new one, the third one is already in use.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
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
