On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 20:58:28 -0500 (EST),
"Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> wrote:
>The infamous LINK_FIRST infrastructure was sort of half-way done.
>
>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.
The "other" list in LINK_FIRST is sorted by name. It could be changed
to a random sort, probably based on a hash of size and mtime. It would
be relatively expensive so would have to be restricted to a "exercise
the kernel" CONFIG option.
>LINK_FIRST is pretty coarse. One would want a topological sort,
>or at least LINK_0 through LINK_9 _without_ anything else.
There is no need for multiple LINK_n entries, the objects partition
neatly into three groups. LINK_FIRST objects, in the order they are
defined. The rest of the objects (object list - (LINK_FIRST +
LINK_LAST), in an undefined order. LINK_LAST objects, in the order
they are defined.
If you can come up with a concrete link order example that cannot be
handled by a three partition model then I will listen. Otherwise it is
just over engineering.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 23 2000 - 21:00:25 EST