On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 09:58:03PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>
> > On May 15, 2018, at 8:11 PM, Frederic Weisbecker <frede...@kernel.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 11:17:03AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>> On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 09:19:54PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >>> arch/arm/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h | 5 ++++-
> >>> arch/arm/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 22 +++-------------------
> >>> arch/arm64/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h | 5 ++++-
> >>> arch/arm64/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 22 +++-------------------
> >>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h | 5 ++++-
> >>> arch/powerpc/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 22 +++-------------------
> >>> arch/sh/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h | 5 ++++-
> >>> arch/sh/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 22 +++-------------------
> >>> arch/x86/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h | 5 ++++-
> >>> arch/x86/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 23 +++--------------------
> >>> arch/xtensa/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h | 5 ++++-
> >>> arch/xtensa/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 22 +++-------------------
> >>
> >> Because of those ^,
> >>
> >>> kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c | 11 ++++++-----
> >>
> >> would it not make sense to have a prelimenary patch doing something
> >> like:
> >>
> >> __weak int hw_breakpoint_arch_check(struct perf_event *bp)
> >> {
> >> return arch_validate_hwbkpt_settings(bp);
> >> }
> >
> > So eventually I fear I can't do that, due to linking order.
> >
> > Say I convert x86 to implement hw_breakpoint_arch_check(), so I
> > remove arch_validate_hwbkpt_settings(). On build time, the weak version
> > is still compiled and can't find a declaration for
> > arch_validate_hwbkpt_settings().
> >
> > I tried to keep the declaration while the definition has been removed but
> > it seems the weak version is linked first before it gets later replaced by
> > the overriden arch version. So I get a build error.
> >
> > I could keep arch_validate_hwbkpt_settings() around on all archs and remove
> > it in
> > the end with the weak version but that would defeat the purpose of removing
> > the mid-state in the current patch.
>
> How about just not using weak functions? Weak functions have annoying issues
> like this, and they have trouble generating good code. I much prefer the
> pattern:
>
> in arch header:
> extern void arch_func(whatever);
> #define arch_func arch_func
>
> in generic header:
> #ifndef arch_func
> static inline void arch_func(whatever) ...
> #endif
Thanks, that works well!
