Received: by 10.192.165.156 with SMTP id m28csp98158imm; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 07:09:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx49VsYS4OKa/cnf7XPbC2uCBFZ9dPtmNE7k7CwE58tBhdKkBDnIEx2Cp0RY9/8djEbQamppL X-Received: by 10.98.223.205 with SMTP id d74mr2150397pfl.114.1523974149164; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 07:09:09 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1523974149; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=TKRtMbRHWHS0EBpoiUPDCzWbYx6GbEPdfFgO7vMnpSea4UHgCOzKZWWNh8fGwtVhV8 q5u4YOXwC2LO715z847ODoINbKvq7Rm1NmvnZgvgWTrcV49Jm9501r6XlQ+KPxpAsm3V 3PCp7XJ2XpMul5qK+Y+2sfHNsmeSA7rt/gQ/TVr+318+TCAQDDK+wLvKS+JI8UvGWJCY 50BQHoZjZ70G84mL1/eoWua1cgNy912dZUPRfD6wvTpM3czB8Ke2vAzOMkXRl7CznsJL +BBdx1SyXORTZtF0urEebNuHqWNTiYO60o9DkO7WguQoDG22SSquh/RNbiuCOa55mZNi STrw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:dmarc-filter:arc-authentication-results; bh=xsWG+0cRqCJqA9TN+iYtLlU4AMVz3kHf8B7c2S9vuPw=; b=ZW+8qWa1JUVUkB5DtrTcu6c28VE7+xWST6/ZiSEtIyDy2WOnJztKTzgsKch7N96OqO AHRgwnHYQx5J5iczvTqR5SVAwd0GC7Y/DgTq/aOFfB6I/byGmylSHuSrYbi49Qir8oHK HRJN6jM6KDvXZHlvpoo+dv43urIO/1Qy+m362agYYA8GTBO+4LgPvsLPqPOi3wgRjq4j /UVGDS2GTDSCzXHpcTZmxsc7+udrYYNg4t9GgOe67HlUo9YraNXK5DyNIKidMvVwmUqH 1i0H3ckWNzRFcr2d8nNqxxIjhWZ6+cqYm+tNsOho7ftvhckE5ly+WgIqTG9Rw2IwCmhy AanA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id n61-v6si14588836plb.112.2018.04.17.07.08.54; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 07:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752805AbeDQOHU (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 17 Apr 2018 10:07:20 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:33308 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752387AbeDQOHS (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2018 10:07:18 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [69.71.5.252]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A108D21727; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 14:07:17 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A108D21727 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=helgaas@kernel.org Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 09:07:14 -0500 From: Bjorn Helgaas To: Baoquan He Cc: Philipp Rudo , Michael Ellerman , kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Biederman , Thiago Jung Bauermann , Dave Young Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] kexec: Remove "weak" annotations from headers Message-ID: <20180417140714.GF28657@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> References: <152355706051.36693.9856090891621551967.stgit@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> <20180413110820.662d4879@ThinkPad> <20180413092908.GB2119@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180413092908.GB2119@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 05:29:08PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: > Hi Bjorn, > > There are changes I have made to solve 5-level conflict with > kexec/kdump and also interface unification task, they will involve x86 > 64 only changes on these functions, I don't think we need remove them if > without any obvious impact or error reported. Removing the weak attribute from the declaration in the header file does not prevent you from defining a weak function later in the .c file. We should remove the weak attribute from the header file declaration because it can lead to non-obvious errors, e.g., calling the wrong version of the function. There's no build-time or run-time indication that this happens, so it's a real trap. Bjorn