On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 08:53:03AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> Andi Kleen <a...@firstfloor.org> 08/19/12 5:02 AM >>> > >-extern const unsigned long kallsyms_addresses[] __attribute__((weak)); > >-extern const u8 kallsyms_names[] __attribute__((weak)); > >+extern __visible const unsigned long kallsyms_addresses[] > >__attribute__((weak)); > >+extern __visible const u8 kallsyms_names[] __attribute__((weak)); > > Shouldn't we minimally aim at consistency here: > - all attributes in a one place (I personally prefer the placement between > type > and name, for compatibility with other compilers, but there are rare cases - > iirc not on declarations though - where gcc doesn't allow this)
Ok. > - not using open coded __attribute__(()) when a definition (here: __weak) is > available, or alternatively open coding all of them (__attribute__((weak, > ...)))? I just kept the original code. But yes it should be using __weak. I can change that. -Andi -- a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
