Messages in this thread |  | | From | Keith Owens <> | Subject | Re: kernel-2.4.0-test11 crashed again; this time i send you the Oops-message | Date | Thu, 23 Nov 2000 13:19:05 +1100 |
| |
On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 20:58:28 -0500 (EST), "Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> wrote: >The infamous LINK_FIRST infrastructure was sort of half-way done. > >It would be best to cause drivers with an unspecified link order >to move around a bit, so that errors may be discovered more quickly.
The "other" list in LINK_FIRST is sorted by name. It could be changed to a random sort, probably based on a hash of size and mtime. It would be relatively expensive so would have to be restricted to a "exercise the kernel" CONFIG option.
>LINK_FIRST is pretty coarse. One would want a topological sort, >or at least LINK_0 through LINK_9 _without_ anything else.
There is no need for multiple LINK_n entries, the objects partition neatly into three groups. LINK_FIRST objects, in the order they are defined. The rest of the objects (object list - (LINK_FIRST + LINK_LAST), in an undefined order. LINK_LAST objects, in the order they are defined.
If you can come up with a concrete link order example that cannot be handled by a three partition model then I will listen. Otherwise it is just over engineering.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |