Re: [PATCH] Add memcpy_cachebypass, a copy routine that tries tokeep cache pressure down

[David Miller]

From: Bryan O'Sullivan <bos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:30:01 -0700

> The last time I tried submitting a patch that followed that style (for
> __iowrite_copy*), it got NAKed for propagating preprocessor abuse (Linus
> roundly flamed someone for a similar patch a few weeks before I
> submitted mine), and Andrew suggested that I use the same scheme that
> this patch uses.
> 
> So whose instructions do I follow?  Yours of today, or Andrew's and
> Linus's of a few months ago?

I didn't realize there was change afoot in this area, sorry.
I was just striving for consistency with current practice.

If Andrew suggested to use weak, that's fine, but it's kind
of erroneous for something like lib/string.c because that
gets built into a library lib.a file, which resolves any
unresolved references.

When the kernel is linked, lib.a implementations only get brought in
if they are not already resolved by definitions present in the other
objects of the kernel image.

Weak makes more sense when dealing with object files, not archives.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/