On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:15:17AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > 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]
Yeah, a lot late :( Please, go ahead with this patch and I send something on top of it. BR, David > > > >> >>+++ 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/
