File 22694-x86_64-no-weak.patch of Package xen

Overview Repositories Revisions Requests Users Attributes Meta

File 22694-x86_64-no-weak.patch of Package xen (Revision e1fd9ae0503cc3f8add20c6580d25645)

Currently displaying revision e1fd9ae0503cc3f8add20c6580d25645 , Show latest

# HG changeset patch
# User Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
# Date 1294649119 0
# Node ID 9b5d121c8805b40a4338248c346303e1e18d0c4e
# Parent  08bb0eefe87107c30a9bdc6d72f26b20c55ae687
x86_64: don't use weak symbols on x86-64
References: bnc#656369, bnc#658704

Various gcc versions inline functions that are both weak and hidden,
without even giving a warning.

Certainly the risk exists that we'll see the problem again when
another weak function gets introduced, but I don't see a way to
protect us from that.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>

Just remove the weak attribute altogether. It's the only one in
non-ia64-specific code. We can get teh same effect with ifdefs which
although a bit unsightly is better than using compiler/linker features
we cannot trust.

Signed-off-by: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>

--- a/xen/drivers/acpi/numa.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/acpi/numa.c
@@ -120,14 +120,15 @@ static int __init acpi_parse_slit(struct
 	return 0;
 }
 
-void __init __attribute__ ((weak))
+#ifndef CONFIG_X86
+void __init
 acpi_numa_x2apic_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_x2apic_cpu_affinity *pa)
 {
 	printk(KERN_WARNING PREFIX
 	       "Found unsupported x2apic [0x%08x] SRAT entry\n", pa->apic_id);
 	return;
 }
-
+#endif
 
 static int __init
 acpi_parse_x2apic_affinity(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,

Places

File 22694-x86_64-no-weak.patch of Package xen (Revision e1fd9ae0503cc3f8add20c6580d25645)

Places