[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120819152918.GX11413@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 17:29:18 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
Cc: andi@...stfloor.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mmarek@...e.cz,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/74] sections: Make external kallsyms tables __visible
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 08:53:03AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> 08/19/12 5:02 AM >>>
> >-extern const unsigned long kallsyms_addresses[] __attribute__((weak));
> >-extern const u8 kallsyms_names[] __attribute__((weak));
> >+extern __visible const unsigned long kallsyms_addresses[] __attribute__((weak));
> >+extern __visible const u8 kallsyms_names[] __attribute__((weak));
>
> Shouldn't we minimally aim at consistency here:
> - all attributes in a one place (I personally prefer the placement between type
> and name, for compatibility with other compilers, but there are rare cases -
> iirc not on declarations though - where gcc doesn't allow this)
Ok.
> - not using open coded __attribute__(()) when a definition (here: __weak) is
> available, or alternatively open coding all of them (__attribute__((weak, ...)))?
I just kept the original code. But yes it should be using __weak.
I can change that.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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