From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/19] OpenRISC: Module support Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:36:31 +0930 Message-ID: <874o3f8p54.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> References: <1308483825-6023-1-git-send-email-jonas@southpole.se> <201106221626.12023.arnd@arndb.de> <1308905525.6699.23.camel@localhost> <201106241205.32037.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201106241205.32037.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Arnd Bergmann , Jonas Bonn Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:05:31 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 24 June 2011, Jonas Bonn wrote: > > I noticed that kernel/module.c already has this: > > > > unsigned int __weak arch_mod_section_prepend(struct module *mod, > > unsigned int section) > > > > > > Is using a __weak attribute on the default (generic) implementations a > > better approach? > > I normally don't like using __weak, because it more easily confuses > readers about which version is actually used. I share your reluctance with __weak, but as fewer people want to touch multiple archs it is becoming the norm. Would happily accept patches... Thanks, Rusty. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:59931 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750809Ab1FYFBi (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Jun 2011 01:01:38 -0400 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/19] OpenRISC: Module support In-Reply-To: <201106241205.32037.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1308483825-6023-1-git-send-email-jonas@southpole.se> <201106221626.12023.arnd@arndb.de> <1308905525.6699.23.camel@localhost> <201106241205.32037.arnd@arndb.de> Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:36:31 +0930 Message-ID: <874o3f8p54.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Arnd Bergmann , Jonas Bonn Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20110624110631.OydWbfWiaPROvXREVzrPTTN5elh14Y9RXpKVT02xPbY@z> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:05:31 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 24 June 2011, Jonas Bonn wrote: > > I noticed that kernel/module.c already has this: > > > > unsigned int __weak arch_mod_section_prepend(struct module *mod, > > unsigned int section) > > > > > > Is using a __weak attribute on the default (generic) implementations a > > better approach? > > I normally don't like using __weak, because it more easily confuses > readers about which version is actually used. I share your reluctance with __weak, but as fewer people want to touch multiple archs it is becoming the norm. Would happily accept patches... Thanks, Rusty.