David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
> Date: 08 May 2003 15:55:31 +0100
>
> Unfortunately for the ISA driver code we *have* to rely on link
> order or rip out the __init stuff and use Space.c type hacks.
>
> I do no argue that needing an invocation order is bogus.
> I merely disagree with the way we're trying to achieve it.
>
> You don't need Space.c magic, the linker in binutils has mechanisms by
> which this can be accomplished and we already use this in 2.5.x
>
> Have a peek at __define_initcall($NUM,fn), imagine it with one more
> argument $PRIO. It might look like this:
>
> #define __define_initcall(level,prio,fn) \
> static initcall_t __initcall_##fn __attribute__
> ((unused,__section__ ("\.initcall" level "." prio ".init"))) = fn
>
> Use the 'prio' number to define the ordering. The default for
> modules that don't care about relative ordering within a class
> use a value like "9999" or something like that.
Linus has traditionally resisted this, and pushed for the
link-order-defines-init-order bit.
However, that was years ago. Patrick Mochel added the current
seven-levels-of-initcall, which is where the referenced
__define_initcall originated.
I agree with you, and would prefer to move away from any dependence on
link order...
Jeff
-
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 : Thu May 15 2003 - 22:00:28 EST