On Monday 27 June 2011, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> 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. True. In fact, we are (slowly) migrating away from HAVE_ARCH_* elsewhere. In include/asm-generic/*.h, the common method is now to #define the exact symbol if an architecture wants to override the generic version. Weak symbols are fairly obscure in comparison, but they are actively used by a few architectures (mips, sh) and some core code in kernel/ and mm/. 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
