On Mon, Feb 26, 2024, at 13:20, Serge Semin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 01:04:33PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024, at 12:27, Serge Semin wrote:
> I see your point now. Thanks for clarification. IMO it would be less
> readable due to the ifdef-ery and the new config, and less
> maintainable due to the conditional compilation, but would provide a
> more performant solution since the compiler will be able to inline the
> singly used static method. Basically you suggest to emulate the weak
> implementation by an additional kernel config.
I mean the kernel config that you already need here, since
the strong version of the function is already optional.
> Not sure whether it would be better than a well-known
> weak-attribute-based pattern. Anyway let's wait for the
> Thomas' opinion about your suggestion. If he thinks
> it would be better I'll update the patches.
Weak functions are not used all that much outside of a
couple of parts of the kernel. There is a lot of them
in drivers/pci/, a little bit in acpi and efi, and
then a bit in arch/*/, though most of that is in mips.
Ifdef checks in .c files are not great, but at least they
are much more common than __weak functions and self-documenting.
Arnd
