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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 07 2002 - 22:00:34 EST