From: Michael Ellerman <michael@ellerman.id.au>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>,
linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/34] PCI: Use a weak symbol for the empty version of pcibios_add_platform_entries()
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:53:38 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1184205218.17010.5.camel@concordia.ozlabs.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070712005447.GY9704@parisc-linux.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1394 bytes --]
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 18:54 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 05:39:23PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > 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.
Regression is a little strong don't you think. I agree it wastes some
space, 1 instruction for an empty function?
> > 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.
>
> But it's already there. Deleting it now is pointless.
It's not pointless, the following patch changes the prototype. So rather
than update the prototype on every architecture, all of which don't use
it (bar one) I thought it was much cleaner to get rid of it.
But I really don't mind, I just wanted to fix the damn warning.
cheers
--
Michael Ellerman
OzLabs, IBM Australia Development Lab
wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au
phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183)
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors,
we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-07-12 1:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-07-11 23:30 [GIT PATCH] PCI patches for 2.6.22 Greg KH
[not found] ` <11841967082916-git-send-email-gregkh@suse.de>
[not found] ` <1184196712526-git-send-email-gregkh@suse.de>
[not found] ` <11841967172946-git-send-email-gregkh@suse.de>
[not found] ` <11841967322884-git-send-email-gregkh@suse.de>
[not found] ` <11841967361726-git-send-email-gregkh@suse.de>
2007-07-11 23:49 ` [PATCH 05/34] PCI: Use a weak symbol for the empty version of pcibios_add_platform_entries() Matthew Wilcox
2007-07-12 0:39 ` Greg KH
2007-07-12 0:54 ` Matthew Wilcox
2007-07-12 1:53 ` Michael Ellerman [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1184205218.17010.5.camel@concordia.ozlabs.ibm.com \
--to=michael@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=gregkh@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®