On Sun, 2019-07-28 at 22:49 +0000, Paul Burton wrote:
> 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").
Unfortunately, checkpatch is pretty stupid and only emits
this on single line declarations.
