![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
rth@twiddle.net said: > > > No. The semantics I need is if A references a weak symbol S > > > and *no one* implements it, then S resolves to NULL. > > > > Sorry, I was unclear. I want to know the dependency semantics: > > If B exports S, should depmod believe A needs B, or not? Your patch > leaves that semantic (all it does is suppress the errors). > Well, that depends on whether A defines S or not. If A does define S, > then I don't care. I'd say "no", A does not depend on B. If A does > not define S, then most definitely "yes", as with any other > definition. As long as doing so doesn't make modprobe fail to load A when B isn't present or refuses to load. Otherwise what was the point in making it weak? -- dwmw2 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:32 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||