On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:41 PM, David Cohen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Bjorn and Sathya, > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 05:42:11PM -0700, sathyanarayanan kuppuswamy wrote: >> Hi Bjorn, >> >> On 10/15/2014 04:26 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >> >[+cc David, Kuppuswamy, x86; sorry, I botched my "stg mail" so you >> >weren't included the first time] >> > >> >On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>For the following interfaces: >> >> >> >> get_penwell_ops() >> >> get_cloverview_ops() >> >> get_tangier_ops() >> >> >> >>there is only one implementation, so they do not need to be marked "weak". >> >> >> >>Remove the "weak" attribute from their declarations. >> >> >> >>Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]> >> >>CC: David Cohen <[email protected]> >> >>CC: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <[email protected]> >> >>CC: [email protected] >> >>--- >> >> arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/intel_mid_weak_decls.h | 7 +++---- >> >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> >> >>diff --git a/arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/intel_mid_weak_decls.h >> >>b/arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/intel_mid_weak_decls.h >> >>index 46aa25c8ce06..3c1c3866d82b 100644 >> >>--- a/arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/intel_mid_weak_decls.h >> Please remove this file and move the contents to asm/intel-mid.h.
I don't know or care enough about intel-mid to do this myself. Right now, I'm just trying to remove unnecessary and incorrect usage of "weak" in header files. > I partially agree :) > > Historically, this file was created because we could not build all intel > mid variants at once. So we have to select only one during compilation > time, which was fixed already. > > But we don't need to expose those functions outside intel-mid's > directory, which means asm/intel-mid.h isn't the best option IMHO. > > If you want, I can send a small re-work instead: we get rid of this > header file completely and simplify a bit what is exposed by > asm/intel-mid.h. Or you can keep this patch and then I send the re-work > on top of it. Anyway I'm fine. It's fine with me if you want to rework this to remove the header completely. When I pointed this out in January [1], you mentioned plans for that. But I think we should merge this patch in the interim to remove the use of "weak" in a header file. If we leave bad examples in the tree, they just proliferate. [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected] >> >>+++ b/arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/intel_mid_weak_decls.h >> >>@@ -10,10 +10,9 @@ >> >> */ >> >> >> >> >> >>-/* __attribute__((weak)) makes these declarations overridable */ >> >> /* For every CPU addition a new get_<cpuname>_ops interface needs >> >> * to be added. >> >> */ >> >>-extern void *get_penwell_ops(void) __attribute__((weak)); >> >>-extern void *get_cloverview_ops(void) __attribute__((weak)); >> >>-extern void *get_tangier_ops(void) __attribute__((weak)); >> >>+extern void *get_penwell_ops(void); >> >>+extern void *get_cloverview_ops(void); >> >>+extern void *get_tangier_ops(void); >> >> >> >> -- >> Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy >> Android kernel developer >> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
