lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [17]   [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 <30299.1042788854@passion.cambridge.redhat.com> you write:
>
> rth@twiddle.net said:
> > 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?

If A depends on B, then modprobe will give a warning if "modprobe A"
fails to load B for some reason. If B doesn't exist, then modprobe
wouldn't know anything about it (presumably).

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:0.045 / U:31.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site