public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>
Cc: linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz,
	Michael Ellerman <michael@ellerman.id.au>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/34] PCI: Use a weak symbol for the empty version of pcibios_add_platform_entries()
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 18:54:47 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070712005447.GY9704@parisc-linux.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070712003923.GA8132@suse.de>

On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 05:39:23PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > This seems like a regression.  We go from having an empty inline
> > function that gets optimised away to 0 to having a function call to a
> > trivial function.  And on any architecture that *does* define this,
> > (unless I misunderstand the GCC manual), we still include the weak
> > definition, thus wasting space.
> 
> Yeah, but it can be a big pain to add it to every architecture when only
> 1 or two need it, which is why I see people using the week symbol stuff
> more and more, right?  This is just following that trend.

But it's already there.  Deleting it now is pointless.

If someone really wants to unify it, better to do:

#ifndef PCIBIOS_PLATFORM_ENTRIES
static inline void pcibios_add_platform_entries(struct pci_dev *dev)
{
}
#endif

in <linux/pci.h> and then PPC can #define PCIBIOS_PLATFORM_ENTRIES
and do its own funky stuff.  This weak symbol stuff has its uses, but
I don't think this is an appropriate use.

-- 
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."

  reply	other threads:[~2007-07-12  0:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-07-11 23:30 [GIT PATCH] PCI patches for 2.6.22 Greg KH
     [not found] ` <11841967082916-git-send-email-gregkh@suse.de>
     [not found]   ` <1184196712526-git-send-email-gregkh@suse.de>
     [not found]     ` <11841967172946-git-send-email-gregkh@suse.de>
     [not found]       ` <11841967322884-git-send-email-gregkh@suse.de>
     [not found]         ` <11841967361726-git-send-email-gregkh@suse.de>
2007-07-11 23:49           ` [PATCH 05/34] PCI: Use a weak symbol for the empty version of pcibios_add_platform_entries() Matthew Wilcox
2007-07-12  0:39             ` Greg KH
2007-07-12  0:54               ` Matthew Wilcox [this message]
2007-07-12  1:53                 ` Michael Ellerman

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=20070712005447.GY9704@parisc-linux.org \
    --to=matthew@wil.cx \
    --cc=gregkh@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz \
    --cc=michael@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=torvalds@osdl.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