[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080725054142.372f1c03.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 05:41:42 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Cc: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: __weak vs ifdef
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 06:24:54 -0600 Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 02:34:55AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > We should make arch_pick_mmap_layout __weak and nuke that ifdef.
>
> I strongly disagree. I find it makes it harder to follow code flow
> when __weak functions are involved. Ifdefs are ugly, no question, but
> they're easier to grep for, see when they'll be defined and know which of
> the arch_pick_mmap_layout() functions will be called. __weak certainly
> has its uses (eg the sys_ni_syscall is great) but I find it's becoming
> overused.
>
> My basic point here is that __weak makes the code easier to write but
> harder to read, and we're supposed to be optimising for easier to read.
>
If you see
void __weak arch_foo(...)
and can't immediately work out what's going on then converting it to an
ifdef maze won't save you.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists