From 5dd5892da9642d6de10794014bb22285a0fac4e1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Keir Fraser Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 08:45:19 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] x86_64: don't use weak symbols on x86-64 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 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 --- xen/drivers/acpi/numa.c | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/xen/drivers/acpi/numa.c b/xen/drivers/acpi/numa.c index 2da987914c..451773c1c4 100644 --- a/xen/drivers/acpi/numa.c +++ b/xen/drivers/acpi/numa.c @@ -120,14 +120,15 @@ static int __init acpi_parse_slit(struct acpi_table_header *table) 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, -- 2.30.2