linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] kexec: Remove "weak" annotations from headers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 17 Apr 2018 22:21:25 +0800
From:   Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc:     Philipp Rudo <prudo@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] kexec: Remove "weak" annotations from headers

On 04/17/18 at 09:07am, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 05:29:08PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > Hi Bjorn,
> > 
> > There are changes I have made to solve 5-level conflict with
> > kexec/kdump and also interface unification task, they will involve x86
> > 64 only changes on these functions, I don't think we need remove them if
> > without any obvious impact or error reported.
> 
> Removing the weak attribute from the declaration in the header file
> does not prevent you from defining a weak function later in the .c
> file.

OK, sounds good to me. Then I have no concern to this, thanks.
Will see if other people have comments.

Thanks
Baoquan