rth@twiddle.net said:
> > > 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).
> Well, that depends on whether A defines S or not. If A does define S,
> then I don't care. I'd say "no", A does not depend on B. If A does
> not define S, then most definitely "yes", as with any other
> definition.
As long as doing so doesn't make modprobe fail to load A when B isn't
present or refuses to load. Otherwise what was the point in making it weak?
-- dwmw2- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 22:00:15 EST