From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: __weak vs ifdef Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 05:41:42 -0700 Message-ID: <20080725054142.372f1c03.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20080725083943.GC19310@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi> <20080725015537.564e3397.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080725091455.GD19310@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi> <20080725092748.GF19310@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi> <20080725023455.dde3eb27.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080725122454.GE6701@parisc-linux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:57952 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752585AbYGYMlv (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:41:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080725122454.GE6701@parisc-linux.org> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Adrian Bunk , Andrea Righi , Linus Torvalds , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 06:24:54 -0600 Matthew Wilcox 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.