Hi Denis,
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 11:22:09PM +0300, Denis Efremov wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/pci.h b/include/linux/pci.h
> index 9e700d9f9f28..1a19d0151b0a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pci.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pci.h
> @@ -1870,25 +1870,13 @@ static inline const char *pci_name(const struct pci_dev *pdev)
> return dev_name(&pdev->dev);
> }
>
> -
> /*
> * Some archs don't want to expose struct resource to userland as-is
> * in sysfs and /proc
> */
> -#ifdef HAVE_ARCH_PCI_RESOURCE_TO_USER
> -void pci_resource_to_user(const struct pci_dev *dev, int bar,
> - const struct resource *rsrc,
> - resource_size_t *start, resource_size_t *end);
> -#else
> -static inline void pci_resource_to_user(const struct pci_dev *dev, int bar,
> - const struct resource *rsrc, resource_size_t *start,
> - resource_size_t *end)
> -{
> - *start = rsrc->start;
> - *end = rsrc->end;
> -}
> -#endif /* HAVE_ARCH_PCI_RESOURCE_TO_USER */
> -
> +void __weak pci_resource_to_user(const struct pci_dev *dev, int bar,
> + const struct resource *rsrc,
> + resource_size_t *start, resource_size_t *end);
>
> /*
> * The world is not perfect and supplies us with broken PCI devices.
This is wrong - using __weak on the declaration in a header will cause
the weak attribute to be applied to all implementations too (presuming
the C files containing the implementations include the header). You then
get whichever impleentation the linker chooses, which isn't necessarily
the one you wanted.
checkpatch.pl should produce an error about this - see the
WEAK_DECLARATION error introduced in commit 619a908aa334 ("checkpatch:
add error on use of attribute((weak)) or __weak declarations").
Thanks,
Paul
