[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.6.22-rc3-mm1: __attribute__((weak)) considered harmful
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 19:14:25 +0200
> Adrian Bunk <> wrote:
>> statistics-infrastructure-make-printk_clock-a-generic-kernel-wide-nsec-resolution.patch
>> shows why __attribute__((weak)) is harmful because you don't see if a
>> required non-weak implemtation is missing:
>> In this case, the weak printk_clock() was renamed to timestamp_clock(),
>> but the ARM and i386 implementations weren't renamed...
> printk_clock() is sched_clock() in disguise, and I'm not sure that making
> sched_clock() more widely available in this fashion is something that we
> want to do anyway.
> Anyway, the statistics patches have just celebrated their first birthday
> and I don't see that they're getting sufficient momentum or interest to
> ever get into mainline so I think I'll drop them, sorry.

the lock contention statistics, which have been added to -mm recently, duplicate
code that we have in the statistics patches. I think I can slim the lock
tracking patches further down considerably (similar to my attempt at
timerstats). I have a working prototype that is getting some polishing brushes.
Would you like to wait how this goes?

As to timestamp_clock(): its useful for statistics, but still a minor feature.
It would be unfortuante if that was the stumbling block for my patches. Am I
right that the fix for the issue pointed at by Adrian is to rename those two
occurrences of printk_clock()? Do you want me to submit a patch?

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: 2007-06-05 01:55    [W:0.079 / U:0.460 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site