[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] generic-hardirqs.patch, 2.6.9-rc1-bk14
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, William Lee Irwin III wrote:

> * Christoph Hellwig <> wrote:
> >> And make hardirq.o dependent on some symbols the architectures set.
> >> Else arches that don't use it carry tons of useless baggage around
> >> (and in fact I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even compie for many)
> On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 02:45:47PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > it compiles fine on x86, x64, ppc and ppc64. Why do you think it wont
> > compile on others?
> > wrt. unused generic functions - why dont we drop them link-time?
> It may be time for a __weak define to abbreviate __attribute__((weak));
> we seem to use it in enough places.

Hmm, whenever i've brought up weak functions in a patch it's never well
received. Frankly i prefer it to littering the architectures with similar


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06    [W:0.080 / U:3.460 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site