From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Jonas Bonn <jonas@southpole.se>
Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/19] OpenRISC: Module support
In-Reply-To: <201106241205.32037.arnd@arndb.de>
References: <1308483825-6023-1-git-send-email-jonas@southpole.se> <201106221626.12023.arnd@arndb.de> <1308905525.6699.23.camel@localhost> <201106241205.32037.arnd@arndb.de>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.5 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.2.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:36:31 +0930
Message-ID: <874o3f8p54.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 947
Lines: 26

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:05:31 +0200, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> On Friday 24 June 2011, Jonas Bonn wrote:
> > I noticed that kernel/module.c already has this:
> > 
> > unsigned int __weak arch_mod_section_prepend(struct module *mod,
> >                                              unsigned int section)
> > 
> >
> > Is using a __weak attribute on the default (generic) implementations a
> > better approach?
> 
> I normally don't like using __weak, because it more easily confuses
> readers about which version is actually used.

I share your reluctance with __weak, but as fewer people want to touch
multiple archs it is becoming the norm.

Would happily accept patches...

Thanks,
Rusty.
--
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/