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.
Thanks Baoquan On 04/13/18 at 11:08am, Philipp Rudo wrote: > Hi Bjorn, > > in recent patches AKASHI  and I  made some changes to the declarations > you are touching and already removed some of the weak statements. The patches > got accepted on linux-next and will (hopefully) be pulled for v4.17. So you > should prepare for some merge conflicts. Nevertheless three weak statements > still remain (arch_kexec_walk_mem & arch_kexec_apply_relocations*) so your > patch still makes totally sense. > > Thanks > Philipp > >  https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/6/201 >  https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/21/278 > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 13:23:29 -0500 > Bjorn Helgaas <helg...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > "Weak" annotations in header files are error-prone because they make > > every definition weak. Remove them from include/linux/kexec.h. > > > > These were introduced in two separate commits, so this is in two > > patches so they can be easily backported to stable kernels (some of > > them date back to v4.3 and one only goes back to v4.10). > > > > --- > > > > Bjorn Helgaas (2): > > kexec: Remove "weak" from kexec_file function declarations > > kexec: Remove "weak" from arch_kexec_walk_mem() declaration > > > > > > include/linux/kexec.h | 24 ++++++++++++------------ > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > kexec mailing list > > ke...@lists.infradead.org > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec > > > > > _______________________________________________ > kexec mailing list > ke...@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec