![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au> said: > On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 14:42:11 +0100, > Horst von Brand <brand@jupiter.cs.uni-dortmund.de> wrote: > >Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au> said: > >> I know, it makes it even harder to see what the initialization order > >> is. Some are controlled by the Makefile/subdirs order, some by special > >> calls in the code. > >Just to repeat myself: This is clearly a problem for tsort(1): Give > >restrictions of the form "This has to come after that" (perhaps a special > >comment at the start of the file containing the init function?), tsort that > >and pick the order out of the result. Should be a few lines of script. No > >central repository for the dependencies, no messing around with half the > >world to fix dependencies. Plus they become explicit, which they aren't > >today. > Just to repeat myself: That is exactly what I want to do. Linus vetoed > it in October 2000. Right. And I still think Linus is dead wrong here. IMVVHO. -- Horst von Brand http://counter.li.org # 22616 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:23 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||