On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 12:42:41PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Patrick Mochel <mochel@osdl.org>
> Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 12:38:06 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
> > There's this middle area between core and subsys, why not
> > just be explicit about it's existence?
> >
> > Short of making the true dependencies describable, I think my
> > postcore_initcall solution is fine.
>
> What sense is there in naming it postcore_initcall? What does it tell you
> about the intent of the function?
>
> It says "this has to be initialized, but after core initcalls because
> it expects core to be setup." That's what "postcore" means. :-)
>
> The initcall levels are not a means to bypass true dependency resolution.
> They're an alternative means to solving some of the dependency problems
> without having a ton of #ifdefs and hardcoded, explicit calls to
> initialization routines.
>
> I added no ifdefs, what are you talking about.
I think the ifdefs referred to any of the more complex, but also
arguably more correct ideas (ie things which actually do real
dependancies). Or maybe hard-coding the corner cases and keeping the
current solution.
> You people are blowing this shit WAY out of proportion. Just fix the
> bug now and reinplement the initcall hierarchy in a seperate changeset
> so people can actually get work done in the 2.5.x tree while you do
> that ok?
heh. Or implement some sort of proper dependancies to it all as well.
:)
-- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 07 2002 - 22:00:22 EST