On 24 August 2017 at 11:34, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On 24.08.17 at 12:19, <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 24 August 2017 at 11:11, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> On 24.08.17 at 11:52, <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> If it already has its own version, I'd prefer we just add #ifndef >>>> CONFIG_IA64 around it instead. >>> >>> Which would then preclude other environments to override it. >> >> ... which is what the comment says in the first place. >> >>> I have such a case in an out-of-tree patch set (which is why >>> I've stumbled over this and the open-coding of it in the BGRT >>> code in the first place). Plus to me it seems preferable to have >>> both functions consistent (of course you could then as for >>> the __weak to be dropped from the other one). >>> >> >> Making symbols __weak in mainline to accommodate unidentified >> out-of-tree users is something I'd prefer to avoid. > > Would you then mind extending the #ifndef to the other function > as well, or would I need to make this a 3rd patch? > OK, fair enough. I only realized now that there is already a precedent for making things __weak so that IA64's implementation can coexist. But I'd still prefer to omit that, and if you don't mind fixing that for the other case, it can be in the same patch. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
