Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 15 May 2020 15:51:35 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To:     Julien Thierry <jthierry@redhat.com>
Cc:     Matt Helsley <mhelsley@vmware.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] objtool: Enable compilation of objtool for all
 architectures
Message-ID: <20200515205135.5pknexlld53oicu5@treble>
References: <cover.1588888003.git.mhelsley@vmware.com>
 <9f709ea2ae66cc03b3ff3329baa8f670ccd0e368.1588888003.git.mhelsley@vmware.com>
 <f9eedb02-54fe-fb96-fbcc-5f40f41e571a@redhat.com>
 <20200513155948.GI9040@rlwimi.vmware.com>
 <e369f0a9-30fc-5754-8cff-bf238ab0b716@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e369f0a9-30fc-5754-8cff-bf238ab0b716@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 05:55:31PM +0100, Julien Thierry wrote:
> > > Since the stuff under arch/missing is only weak symbols to make up for
> > > missing subcmd implementations, can we put everything in a file
> > > subcmd_defaults.c (name up for debate!) that would be always be compiled an
> > > linked. And some SUBCMD_XXX is set to "y", the corresponding object file
> > > gets compiled and overrides the weak symbols from subcmd_defaults.c .
> > 
> > Hmm, I like keeping them separated along similar lines to the other
> > code because it makes it easier to see the intended correspondence and
> > likely will keep the files more readable / smaller. I could
> > just move them out of arch/missing and into missing_check.c and so forth.
> > 
> > What do you think of that?
> > 
> 
> I do prefer that to the introduction of an arch/missing.
> 
> Still, I'm not sure I see much benefit in splitting those small
> implementations in separate files, but it's not a problem either. This seems
> more a matter of taste rather than one approach working better than the
> other. So it's more up to what the maintainer prefer! :)

For now I'd prefer getting rid of the 'missing' arch and just having a
single top-level weak.c which has all the weak functions in it.  Keeps
the clutter down :-)

Down the road, if the number of weak functions got out of hand then we
could look at splitting them up into multiple files.

-- 
Josh