Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] automatic module_init ordering | Date | Wed, 07 Aug 2002 11:05:43 +1000 |
| |
In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0208062031040.28515-100000@serv> you write: > Hi, > > On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > > - I use a separate initcall for the module initialization, that's the > > > only way I can solve my IDE problems. > > > > That's horrible 8( I think we need figure out why this is happening: > > do you know? What does it actually need? > > I think pci initialization. > > > I've updated my explicit core initcalls patch on top of your new one, > > thanks! > > > > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rusty/Misc/ordered-core-i nitcalls.patch.2.5.30.gz > > I'm not sure we should go this way. My main problem is that it only solves > a single ordering problem - boot time ordering. What about suspend/wakeup? > We have more of these ordering problems and driverfs is supposed to help > with them, so I'd rather first would like to see how much we can fix this > way.
suspend/wakeup is a device issue, solved well by devicefs. This is completely independent from the subtleties of initialization order in the core kernel code: devices are not the problem.
Look at how many places have explicit initializers with #ifdef CONFIG_XXX around them, because initialization order problems were too hard before. These can now be fixed as desired.
I really want *one* place where you can see what order things are initalized. If that means one big file with #ifdef's, fine. But the current approach of using link order, initializer levels and explicit initializers is really hard to debug and modify.
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/
| |