Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 4 Jun 2002 13:56:44 -0700 | From | Tom Rini <> | Subject | Re: [2.5.19] Oops during PCI scan on Alpha |
| |
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 12:42:41PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Patrick Mochel <mochel@osdl.org> > Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 12:38:06 -0700 (PDT) > > > > There's this middle area between core and subsys, why not > > just be explicit about it's existence? > > > > Short of making the true dependencies describable, I think my > > postcore_initcall solution is fine. > > What sense is there in naming it postcore_initcall? What does it tell you > about the intent of the function? > > It says "this has to be initialized, but after core initcalls because > it expects core to be setup." That's what "postcore" means. :-) > > The initcall levels are not a means to bypass true dependency resolution. > They're an alternative means to solving some of the dependency problems > without having a ton of #ifdefs and hardcoded, explicit calls to > initialization routines. > > I added no ifdefs, what are you talking about.
I think the ifdefs referred to any of the more complex, but also arguably more correct ideas (ie things which actually do real dependancies). Or maybe hard-coding the corner cases and keeping the current solution.
> You people are blowing this shit WAY out of proportion. Just fix the > bug now and reinplement the initcall hierarchy in a seperate changeset > so people can actually get work done in the 2.5.x tree while you do > that ok?
heh. Or implement some sort of proper dependancies to it all as well. :)
-- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ - 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/
| |