* David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I recall David Howells had a similar issue with the bootparamter patch set. > > The workaround he used was to add a barrier(); call in the weak function > > to avoid the inline. > > Yes I did. Rusty's solution was just to move the default weak functions into > different files. > > Attempting to use the noinline attribute does not work. > > Of course, you could just stick the functions into lib/ in separate .c > files and dispense with the weak attribute altogether. the weak functions should be close to where the code that uses them is - not somewhere separate (where no-one will really be aware of their existence). So either we find a way to avoid such repeat bugs in the future, or we do away with weak functions altogether and go back to stone-age #ifdefs ;-) I think we should get a Sparse check that detects empty void __weak functions? Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
