Re: [module-init-tools] fix weak symbol handling

From: Rusty Russell (rusty@rustcorp.com.au)
Date: Thu Jan 16 2003 - 20:57:03 EST

Next message: Richard Henderson: "Re: [module-init-tools] fix weak symbol handling"
Previous message: Rusty Russell: "Re: [PATCH] Proposed module init race fix."
Next in thread: Richard Henderson: "Re: [module-init-tools] fix weak symbol handling"
Reply: Richard Henderson: "Re: [module-init-tools] fix weak symbol handling"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

In message <20030114171457.E5751@twiddle.net> you write:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 02:16:57PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > So the semantics you want are that if A declares a weak symbol S, and
> > B exports a (presumably non-weak) symbol S, then A depends on B?
>
> No. The semantics I need is if A references a weak symbol S
> and *no one* implements it, then S resolves to NULL.

Sorry, I was unclear. I want to know the dependency semantics:

If B exports S, should depmod believe A needs B, or not? Your patch
leaves that semantic (all it does is suppress the errors).

I'm not sure what semantics are "right", since I don't know what
you're trying to do, or what is wrong with get_symbol().

Hope that clarifies?
Rusty.

--
  Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Richard Henderson: "Re: [module-init-tools] fix weak symbol handling"
Previous message: Rusty Russell: "Re: [PATCH] Proposed module init race fix."
Next in thread: Richard Henderson: "Re: [module-init-tools] fix weak symbol handling"
Reply: Richard Henderson: "Re: [module-init-tools] fix weak symbol handling"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 22:00:15 EST