[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201106251508.50129.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:08:49 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
monstr@...str.eu, cmetcalf@...era.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modules: add default loader hook implementations
On Saturday 25 June 2011, Jonas Bonn wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-06-25 at 12:04 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Also, and more importantly, don't we generally do such things via
> > __weak aliases, because the result looks cleaner and needs no changes
> > for architectures beyond the removal of the generic functions? We
> > have excluded broken toolchains that miscompile/mislink __weak IIRC
> > so __weak ought to work.
>
> When we discussed this briefly yesterday, both Rusty and Arnd showed a
> preference for not using __weak aliases... I'll leave it to them to
> comment further.
>
> The alternative patch that just provides __weak implementations for
> these hooks is much less invasive than the patch I sent, effectively
> touching only kernel/module.c
>
> Let me know which is preferable.
I don't care much either way, you would get my Ack for both solutions.
The __weak approach would definitely make a simpler patch, and the
patch you sent adds extra complexity because of the
asm_generic_moduleloader_hooks macro you used to avoid having to
change all other architectures.
Arnd
--
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