On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 01:29:54PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > 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. Why would I need it if after this patch is applied the mips_cm_l2sync_phys_base() method will be converted to a global weak implementation? > > > 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. + a lot of them in kernel/*, some in mm/* .) > > Ifdef checks in .c files are not great, but at least they > are much more common than __weak functions and self-documenting. Ok. I don't have concretely strong opinion about what is better. Let's wait for what Thomas thinks about this. -Serge(y) > > Arnd
