Messages in this thread |  | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [module-init-tools] fix weak symbol handling | Date | Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:57:03 +1100 |
| |
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/
|  |