From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6112CC433E0 for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 18:26:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 424B020657 for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 18:26:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2387874AbgERS0m (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2020 14:26:42 -0400 Received: from ex13-edg-ou-002.vmware.com ([208.91.0.190]:20732 "EHLO EX13-EDG-OU-002.vmware.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730445AbgERS0e (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2020 14:26:34 -0400 Received: from sc9-mailhost2.vmware.com (10.113.161.72) by EX13-EDG-OU-002.vmware.com (10.113.208.156) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.0.1156.6; Mon, 18 May 2020 11:26:32 -0700 Received: from localhost (unknown [10.200.192.41]) by sc9-mailhost2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8500FB2C85; Mon, 18 May 2020 14:26:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 11:26:33 -0700 From: Matt Helsley To: Josh Poimboeuf CC: Julien Thierry , , Peter Zijlstra , Miroslav Benes , Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] objtool: Enable compilation of objtool for all architectures Message-ID: <20200518182633.GL9040@rlwimi.vmware.com> Mail-Followup-To: Matt Helsley , Josh Poimboeuf , Julien Thierry , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Miroslav Benes , Steven Rostedt References: <9f709ea2ae66cc03b3ff3329baa8f670ccd0e368.1588888003.git.mhelsley@vmware.com> <20200513155948.GI9040@rlwimi.vmware.com> <20200515205135.5pknexlld53oicu5@treble> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200515205135.5pknexlld53oicu5@treble> Received-SPF: None (EX13-EDG-OU-002.vmware.com: mhelsley@vmware.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 03:51:35PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 05:55:31PM +0100, Julien Thierry wrote: > > > > Since the stuff under arch/missing is only weak symbols to make up for > > > > missing subcmd implementations, can we put everything in a file > > > > subcmd_defaults.c (name up for debate!) that would be always be compiled an > > > > linked. And some SUBCMD_XXX is set to "y", the corresponding object file > > > > gets compiled and overrides the weak symbols from subcmd_defaults.c . > > > > > > Hmm, I like keeping them separated along similar lines to the other > > > code because it makes it easier to see the intended correspondence and > > > likely will keep the files more readable / smaller. I could > > > just move them out of arch/missing and into missing_check.c and so forth. > > > > > > What do you think of that? > > > > > > > I do prefer that to the introduction of an arch/missing. > > > > Still, I'm not sure I see much benefit in splitting those small > > implementations in separate files, but it's not a problem either. This seems > > more a matter of taste rather than one approach working better than the > > other. So it's more up to what the maintainer prefer! :) > > For now I'd prefer getting rid of the 'missing' arch and just having a > single top-level weak.c which has all the weak functions in it. Keeps > the clutter down :-) > > Down the road, if the number of weak functions got out of hand then we > could look at splitting them up into multiple files. OK, I'll merge them all into weak.c Thanks! Cheers, -Matt Helsley