Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] automatic initcalls | Date | Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:39:51 +1000 |
| |
In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0207272145050.6125-100000@home.transmeta.com> you wri te: > > > On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > > I've always preferred a system where one simply lists dependencies [as > > you describe above], and some program actually does the hard work of > > chasing down all the initcall dependency checking and ordering. > > > > Linus has traditionally poo-pooed this so I haven't put any work towards > > it... > > I don't hate the notion, but at the same time every time it comes up I > feel that there are reasonably simple ways to just avoid the ordering > problems.
I think that the best hope is a combination of Roman's module depends work (based on Kai's "everything which is a module is trivial", and Stephen and my first depends hack) and explicit depends.
Linkage ordering doesn't work in general, for things like "I want to be initialized before the non-boot cpus have come up", but for non-core code it's simple.
> Rusty had a script, but somebody complained about the speed of it. I > haven't looked at it myself.
Yes, it'll slow the build by a few seconds: but if the linker ever decides not to preserve ordering, we'll need it. My original shell script is suboptimal but we *don't* want the kernel build relying on libbfd.
Roman and I will come up with something and send it to you later this week.
Thanks! Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - 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/
| |