lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: crc32 cleanups
Date
On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:29:39 +0200 (MET DST), 
Bjorn Wesen <bjorn@sparta.lu.se> wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Keith Owens wrote:
>> ???! __initcall entries are executed in the order that they are linked
>> into the kernel. The linkage order is controlled by the order that
>> Makefiles are processed during kbuild and by line order within each
>> Makefile. There is definitely a priority order for __initcall code.
>
>Not to mention that as an individual sub-project maintainer you can't go
>around changing higher level makefiles all the time just to get your
>particular initcall chain in order (again, in practice).
>
>You could _conceivably_ build an initcall dependency system by adding some
>"initcall_requires" macros which put the dependant other calls into
>another linker table, which the kernel would resolve at boot.

Absolutely agree. I would love to separate the initcall order from
directory and Makefile order, using a clean and well documented method
of describing initialisation order. But there is one massive problem
with changing the existing method, .... Linus likes it this way.

Maybe after kbuild 2.5 is in. I have learnt to fight one battle at a
time.

-
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 13:08    [W:0.056 / U:0.788 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site