[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1663692878.h3l8c563n8.naveen@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 22:32:46 +0530
From: "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>
To: anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com, borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com,
catalin.marinas@....com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
gor@...ux.ibm.com, guoren@...nel.org, hca@...ux.ibm.com,
hpa@...or.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-csky@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
mhiramat@...nel.org, namit@...are.com, palmer@...belt.com,
paul.walmsley@...ive.com, peterz@...radead.org, x86@...nel.org,
Yipeng Zou <zouyipeng@...wei.com>
Cc: chris.zjh@...wei.com, liaochang1@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] make weak attributes in {k,u}probes
Yipeng Zou wrote:
> We have some function implementation under some arch does nothing.
> We can mark it with weak attributes to improve.
That's not always an improvement. See [1] for an example, among many
other patches to reduce use of __weak functions in the kernel.
As an alternative, please consider the approach used in [1].
- Naveen
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220519091237.676736-1-naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists