From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
Cc: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>,
Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@gmail.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: __weak vs ifdef
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 05:41:42 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080725054142.372f1c03.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080725122454.GE6701@parisc-linux.org>
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 06:24:54 -0600 Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 02:34:55AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > We should make arch_pick_mmap_layout __weak and nuke that ifdef.
>
> I strongly disagree. I find it makes it harder to follow code flow
> when __weak functions are involved. Ifdefs are ugly, no question, but
> they're easier to grep for, see when they'll be defined and know which of
> the arch_pick_mmap_layout() functions will be called. __weak certainly
> has its uses (eg the sys_ni_syscall is great) but I find it's becoming
> overused.
>
> My basic point here is that __weak makes the code easier to write but
> harder to read, and we're supposed to be optimising for easier to read.
>
If you see
void __weak arch_foo(...)
and can't immediately work out what's going on then converting it to an
ifdef maze won't save you.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-07-25 12:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-07-25 8:39 PAGE_ALIGN() compile breakage Adrian Bunk
2008-07-25 8:55 ` Andrew Morton
2008-07-25 9:14 ` Adrian Bunk
2008-07-25 9:25 ` Andrew Morton
2008-07-25 18:34 ` Andrea Righi
2008-07-25 9:27 ` Adrian Bunk
2008-07-25 9:34 ` Andrew Morton
2008-07-25 12:24 ` __weak vs ifdef Matthew Wilcox
2008-07-25 12:41 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2008-07-26 19:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-02-18 2:07 ` Grant Likely
2010-02-18 2:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-07-26 21:22 ` [-mm patch] mm/util.c must #include <linux/sched.h> Adrian Bunk
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080725054142.372f1c03.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bunk@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=righi.andrea@gmail.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).