lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [Patch 1/4] Allow arch-specific cleanup before breakpoint unregistration
    On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:01:24PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote:
    > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 07:23:15PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
    > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:47:42PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote:
    > > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:54:41AM +0100, David Howells wrote:
    > > > > K.Prasad <prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > > > My understanding is weak function definitions must appear in a different C
    > > > > > > file than their call sites to work on some toolchains.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Atleast, there are quite a few precedents inside the Linux kernel for
    > > > > > __weak functions being invoked from the file in which they are defined
    > > > > > (arch_hwblk_init, arch_enable_nonboot_cpus_begin and hw_perf_disable to
    > > > > > name a few).
    > > > > > Moreover the online GCC docs haven't any such constraints mentioned.
    > > > >
    > > > > I've seen problems in this area. gcc sometimes inlines a weak function that's
    > > > > in the same file as the call point.
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > We've seen such behaviour even otherwise....even with noinline attribute
    > > > in place. I'm not sure if this gcc fix
    > > > (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16922) helped correct the
    > > > behaviour, but the lesson has been to not trust a function to be
    > > > inlined/remain non-inline consistently.
    > >
    > >
    > > If we can't put the call to the function in the same file of its weak
    > > definition, then perf is totally screwed.
    > >
    > > And in fact it makes __weak basically useless and unusable. I guess
    > > that happened in old gcc versions that have been fixed now.
    > >
    > > Anyway, I'm personally fine with this patch (you can put my hack
    > > if you want).
    > >
    >
    > I guess you meant "Acked-by:" :-)



    Oops, right :)



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-05-26 19:37    [W:0.021 / U:0.648 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site