[Patch 1/4] Allow arch-specific cleanup before breakpoint unregistration
Michael Ellerman
michael at ellerman.id.au
Thu May 27 01:13:47 EST 2010
On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 10:54 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> K.Prasad <prasad at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > > My understanding is weak function definitions must appear in a different C
> > > file than their call sites to work on some toolchains.
> > >
> >
> > Atleast, there are quite a few precedents inside the Linux kernel for
> > __weak functions being invoked from the file in which they are defined
> > (arch_hwblk_init, arch_enable_nonboot_cpus_begin and hw_perf_disable to
> > name a few).
> > Moreover the online GCC docs haven't any such constraints mentioned.
>
> I've seen problems in this area. gcc sometimes inlines a weak function that's
> in the same file as the call point.
See the functions in kernel/softirq.c for example, and commits 43a256322
and b2e2fe996 - though unhelpfully they don't mention the gcc version. A
bit of googling suggests it was probably "gcc version 4.1.1 20060525
(Red Hat 4.1.1-1)" in that case.
But the example of hw_perf_enable() (which is weak in the same unit),
suggests maybe this isn't a bug many people are hitting in practice
anymore.
Having said that the #define foo foo pattern is reasonably neat and
avoids the problem altogether, see eg. arch_setup_msi_irqs.
cheers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/attachments/20100527/aa2f70a4/attachment.pgp>
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list