From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonas Bonn Subject: Re: [PATCH] modules: add default loader hook implementations Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 12:39:27 +0200 Message-ID: <1308998367.6699.30.camel@localhost> References: <1308987512-6583-1-git-send-email-jonas@southpole.se> <20110625100449.GA19097@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.southpole.se ([193.12.106.18]:56542 "EHLO mail.southpole.se" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751041Ab1FYKjb (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Jun 2011 06:39:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20110625100449.GA19097@elte.hu> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: rusty@rustcorp.com.au, arnd@arndb.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, monstr@monstr.eu, cmetcalf@tilera.com, Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton On Sat, 2011-06-25 at 12:04 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > Also, and more importantly, don't we generally do such things via > __weak aliases, because the result looks cleaner and needs no changes > for architectures beyond the removal of the generic functions? We > have excluded broken toolchains that miscompile/mislink __weak IIRC > so __weak ought to work. When we discussed this briefly yesterday, both Rusty and Arnd showed a preference for not using __weak aliases... I'll leave it to them to comment further. The alternative patch that just provides __weak implementations for these hooks is much less invasive than the patch I sent, effectively touching only kernel/module.c Let me know which is preferable. /Jonas