* [RFC] Removal of CONFIG_HAVE_UNDERSCORE_SYMBOL_PREFIX
@ 2018-05-05 10:16 Masahiro Yamada
2018-05-05 15:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-05-05 15:55 ` Sam Ravnborg
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Masahiro Yamada @ 2018-05-05 10:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds, Arnd Bergmann, linux-arch
Cc: Linux Kbuild mailing list, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Steven Miao,
James Hogan, Andrew Morton, Greg Kroah-Hartman
Hi.
CONFIG_HAVE_UNDERSCORE_SYMBOL_PREFIX was selected
by BLACKFIN and METAG.
Now that both architectures removed in the previous
merge window, there is no more user of this CONFIG option.
My question is,
is it OK to remove CONFIG_HAVE_UNDERSCORE_SYMBOL_PREFIX entirely?
In other words,
- Is there possibility to revive Blackfin/Metag support?
- Do future architectures need HAVE_UNDERSCORE_SYMBOL_PREFIX?
I guess (hope) they are unlikely to happen.
If we can remove CONFIG_HAVE_UNDERSCORE_SYMBOL_PREFIX,
several tools (modpost, genksyms, adjust_autoksyms.sh, etc.)
will be simplified.
Also, VMLINUX_SYMBOL() in include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
can be removed. So, the linker script will become more readable.
Is it OK to move forward the clean-ups?
Comments are appreciated.
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Removal of CONFIG_HAVE_UNDERSCORE_SYMBOL_PREFIX
2018-05-05 10:16 [RFC] Removal of CONFIG_HAVE_UNDERSCORE_SYMBOL_PREFIX Masahiro Yamada
@ 2018-05-05 15:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-05-05 15:55 ` Sam Ravnborg
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2018-05-05 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Masahiro Yamada
Cc: Arnd Bergmann, linux-arch, Linux Kbuild mailing list,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Steven Miao (Steven Miao), James Hogan,
Andrew Morton, Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 12:17 AM Masahiro Yamada <
yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote:
> My question is,
> is it OK to remove CONFIG_HAVE_UNDERSCORE_SYMBOL_PREFIX entirely?
Absolutely. Let's not keep legacy stuff that complicates things around
unless necessary.
Even if there might be some unlikely future reason why it might be revived
some day, let's not use "what if" as an argument to keep unused code around.
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [RFC] Removal of CONFIG_HAVE_UNDERSCORE_SYMBOL_PREFIX
2018-05-05 10:16 [RFC] Removal of CONFIG_HAVE_UNDERSCORE_SYMBOL_PREFIX Masahiro Yamada
2018-05-05 15:50 ` Linus Torvalds
@ 2018-05-05 15:55 ` Sam Ravnborg
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Sam Ravnborg @ 2018-05-05 15:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Masahiro Yamada
Cc: Linus Torvalds, Arnd Bergmann, linux-arch,
Linux Kbuild mailing list, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Steven Miao,
James Hogan, Andrew Morton, Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 07:16:13PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi.
>
>
> CONFIG_HAVE_UNDERSCORE_SYMBOL_PREFIX was selected
> by BLACKFIN and METAG.
>
> Now that both architectures removed in the previous
> merge window, there is no more user of this CONFIG option.
No need to keep this around, just in case someone steps up
to add support for these archs again.
There is no users so it will bit-rot over time anyway,
and will confuse new readers.
And if an arch shows up there is now a good incentive to
do what everyone else does, rather than having
special handling in the kernel.
Removing the symbol has the extra benefit that the kbuild
files becomes a little more readable, something we should
always welcome.
In other words - drop the symbol.
And well spotted!
Sam
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-05-05 15:55 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-05-05 10:16 [RFC] Removal of CONFIG_HAVE_UNDERSCORE_SYMBOL_PREFIX Masahiro Yamada
2018-05-05 15:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-05-05 15:55 ` Sam Ravnborg
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.