On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 05:49:22PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 04:31:19PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > I'm not sure if this is going to fly, weak symbols work on the compilers I'm > > using, but whether they work for all of the affected architectures I can't > > say. > > I've cc'ed as many arch maintainers/lists as I could find. > > > > But assuming they do, we can use a weak empty definition of > > pcibios_add_platform_entries() to avoid having an empty definition on every > > arch. > > This seems like a regression. We go from having an empty inline > function that gets optimised away to 0 to having a function call to a > trivial function. And on any architecture that *does* define this, > (unless I misunderstand the GCC manual), we still include the weak > definition, thus wasting space.
Yeah, but it can be a big pain to add it to every architecture when only 1 or two need it, which is why I see people using the week symbol stuff more and more, right? This is just following that trend. thanks, greg k-h - 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/
