From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH] modules: add default loader hook implementations Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:05:44 +0200 Message-ID: <201106271305.44746.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1308987512-6583-1-git-send-email-jonas@southpole.se> <87hb7b7ic6.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:53869 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755658Ab1F0LGD (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jun 2011 07:06:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Rusty Russell , Jonas Bonn , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, monstr@monstr.eu, cmetcalf@tilera.com, Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton On Monday 27 June 2011, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> 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. > > > > I think you misread me. If all else is equal, I dislike weak functions. > > But AFAICT the two standard mechanisms are #ifdef HAVE_ARCH and __weak. > > Inventing a third one is not going to be a win. > > It's not inventing a new one, the third one is already in use. True. In fact, we are (slowly) migrating away from HAVE_ARCH_* elsewhere. In include/asm-generic/*.h, the common method is now to #define the exact symbol if an architecture wants to override the generic version. Weak symbols are fairly obscure in comparison, but they are actively used by a few architectures (mips, sh) and some core code in kernel/ and mm/. Arnd