[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YyrKc/tpLllEBH/m@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 10:25:23 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: 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, x86@...nel.org,
Yipeng Zou <zouyipeng@...wei.com>, chris.zjh@...wei.com,
liaochang1@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] make weak attributes in {k,u}probes
On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 10:32:46PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> 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.
More weak 'fun':
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220419203807.655552918@infradead.org
Powered by blists - more mailing lists