From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com (mail-pa0-f46.google.com [209.85.220.46]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F025F6B0009 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 14:04:25 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id uo6so105469040pac.1 for ; Tue, 02 Feb 2016 11:04:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from blackbird.sr71.net (www.sr71.net. [198.145.64.142]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id v86si3507419pfi.16.2016.02.02.11.04.24 for ; Tue, 02 Feb 2016 11:04:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/31] x86, pkeys: dump pkey from VMA in /proc/pid/smaps References: <20160129181642.98E7D468@viggo.jf.intel.com> <20160129181713.3F22714C@viggo.jf.intel.com> <56B0D54C.3010901@suse.cz> From: Dave Hansen Message-ID: <56B0FDB7.4070500@sr71.net> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 11:04:23 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56B0D54C.3010901@suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Vlastimil Babka , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com On 02/02/2016 08:11 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> +void __weak arch_show_smap(struct seq_file *m, struct vm_area_struct >> *vma) >> +{ >> +} > > Is it valid that this serves also as a declaration? Or should it be also > in some header? I guess having it in a header would make it less likely that someone screws up a definition farther down the line. But, it also seemed a wee bit of overkill for a single user. I'm happy to send a follow-on patch to add it to a header somewhere. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org