Messages in this thread |  | | From | Peter Samuelson <> | Date | Wed, 22 Nov 2000 20:42:54 -0600 (CST) | Subject | Re: kernel-2.4.0-test11 crashed again; this time i send you the Oops-message |
| |
[Albert D. Cahalan] > The infamous LINK_FIRST infrastructure was sort of half-way done.
I disagree: it could handle all cases I could see that we might reasonably care about. I challenge anyone to come up with a non-pathological case that could not be taken care of with a single LINK_FIRST and/or a single LINK_LAST.
The worst I can think of is something like "all PCI drivers must come before all ISA drivers" which would require listing all of one set or the other. But when you see a case like that, it often means "this directory really needs to be split", because you have two different classes of things in a single directory.
> 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.
That was the plan -- in 2.5. (The 2.4 version did not disturb any order at all, unless you explicitly put a LINK_FIRST declaration in the individual makefile.) Now that LINK_FIRST is officially dead, none of this will probably happen at all.
> LINK_FIRST is pretty coarse. One would want a topological sort, or at > least LINK_0 through LINK_9 _without_ anything else.
Too complex, no easy upgrade path (read: too different from status quo), very little benefit over LINK_FIRST + LINK_LAST. For the topological sort in particular I'm interestested in how it's even possible to do in a non-intrusive and maintainable way.
Peter - 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/
|  |