Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751065AbVLLOiO (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:38:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751175AbVLLOiO (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:38:14 -0500 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:46236 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751065AbVLLOiN (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:38:13 -0500 To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pj@sgi.com, rth@twiddle.net, davej@redhat.com, zwane@arm.linux.org.uk, ak@suse.de, ashok.raj@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] move pm_power_off and pm_idle declaration to common code References: From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 07:36:05 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Miklos Szeredi's message of "Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:28:21 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1309 Lines: 33 Miklos Szeredi writes: >> > So move declaration of pm_power_off (and with it pm_idle) from the >> > archs that do define it to kernel/sys.c. This should fix the link >> > problem, and at the same time remove some duplication. >> >> Sounds sane. >> >> Does powerpc still build? A key question is how do we handle architectures >> that always want to want to call machine_power_off. > > I didn't (and can't) check, but it should. IIRC multiple declaration > of a variable is OK, as long as at most one has an initializer. It should be easy enough to put that declaration on an architecture you can build and check that way. Multiple declaration of a variable with only one having an initializer work because the variable gets put into the common section as I recall. I don't believe this is portable to all C implementations. but the important question is does this construct work in the kernel. If it doesn't work as is we should be able to get similar behavior from weak symbols. Could you test that part of your patch please? Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/