On Thursday 10 March 2016, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> yes. this is also ok-ish fix.
> I've sent different version already:
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/595617/
>
> I considered the option like yours but it's relying on gcc doing
> dead code elimination of 'if (false) {}' branch and though kernel
> is never compiled with -O0. I didn't want to take the risk.
> I'm fine with either approach though.
Ok, and I see yours is already applied, so that's fine.
In general, I don't like __weak symbols in the kernel as they
make it less clear what is actually getting called, and I think my
version would have been safe, we rely on building with -O2 or -Os
in a lot of places because of similar things.
Arnd
