lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [module-init-tools] fix weak symbol handling
Date
In message <20030114171457.E5751@twiddle.net> you write:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 02:16:57PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > So the semantics you want are that if A declares a weak symbol S, and
> > B exports a (presumably non-weak) symbol S, then A depends on B?
>
> 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).

I'm not sure what semantics are "right", since I don't know what
you're trying to do, or what is wrong with get_symbol().

Hope that clarifies?
Rusty.
--
Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
-
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 13:32    [W:13.438 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site