[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] parisc: fix module loading failure of large kernel modules (take 4)

    * Linus Torvalds <> wrote:

    > On Wed, 31 Dec 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > >
    > > Adrian claimed that it was gcc-4.1.0 and 4.1.1 only. He proposed
    > > banning them:
    > If it really is just those releases, then yes, considering the number of
    > cases we apparently have, and considering how ugly it is in some cases
    > to move the weak function anywhere else, maybe banning those versions is
    > the proper thing to do.
    > It probably won't hurt very many people - yeah, some people will be
    > forced to upgrade, but I have this memory of early 4.1 having had other
    > bugs anyway, so it's probably a good idea.

    That would be _really_ nice to do IMHO: in many cases putting the __weak
    definition into same-file scope with a call site is a natural approach. I
    think that's how we ended up having so many instances of that bug. When
    you use __weak as a 'default implementation' for some function, then it's
    very natural to put it into the same file that also uses it.

    It goes into separate, inactive scope only in a few special cases: such as
    when it's some library function that can be overriden by the architecture.
    But if it's some non-libray kernel code then the usage site is close to
    the definition site.

    If you look at most of the __weak fixes they IMO actually turned clean
    code into less clean code: they detached some natural clustering of
    definition and callsite.

    And __weak is very elegant IMO, it can avoid a lot of #ifdefs and can be
    used to self-document architecture interfaces - so it would be nice to
    make it always work, regardless of the callsite's scope.


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-01-01 15:27    [W:0.021 / U:0.036 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site