Re: 2.6.22-rc3-mm1: __attribute__((weak)) considered harmful

[Martin Peschke]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 19:14:25 +0200
> Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > statistics-infrastructure-make-printk_clock-a-generic-kernel-wide-nsec-resolution.patch 
> > shows why __attribute__((weak)) is harmful because you don't see if a 
> > required non-weak implemtation is missing:
> >
> > In this case, the weak printk_clock() was renamed to timestamp_clock(), 
> > but the ARM and i386 implementations weren't renamed...
>
> printk_clock() is sched_clock() in disguise, and I'm not sure that making
> sched_clock() more widely available in this fashion is something that we
> want to do anyway.
>
> Anyway, the statistics patches have just celebrated their first birthday
> and I don't see that they're getting sufficient momentum or interest to
> ever get into mainline so I think I'll drop them, sorry.

Andrew,
the lock contention statistics, which have been added to -mm recently, duplicate 
code that we have in the statistics patches. I think I can slim the lock 
tracking patches further down considerably (similar to my attempt at 
timerstats). I have a working prototype that is getting some polishing brushes. 
Would you like to wait how this goes?

As to timestamp_clock(): its useful for statistics, but still a minor feature. 
It would be unfortuante if that was the stumbling block for my patches. Am I 
right that the fix for the issue pointed at by Adrian is to rename those two 
occurrences of printk_clock()? Do you want me to submit a patch?

-
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/