Re: [PATCH] modules: add default loader hook implementations

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Saturday 25 June 2011, Jonas Bonn wrote:
> 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.

I don't care much either way, you would get my Ack for both solutions.
The __weak approach would definitely make a simpler patch, and the
patch you sent adds extra complexity because of the
asm_generic_moduleloader_hooks macro you used to avoid having to
change all other architectures.

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/