Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: More linker magic.. | From | Andreas Schwab <> | Date | 03 Aug 1999 12:01:11 +0200 |
| |
Matthew Kirkwood <weejock@ferret.lmh.ox.ac.uk> writes:
|> On 3 Aug 1999, Andi Kleen wrote: |> |> > Would it make sense to add a "priority" argument to __initcall ? |> > This would allow to express simple dependencies between modules. Of |> > course this could be emulated by immediate functions that do the |> > traditional manual initialization. |> |> > The standard[1] linker cannot sort constructors, but system startup is |> > not performance critical, so it is reasonable to sort the init table |> > at runtime. |> |> Sort? Pah, why not just force the priority to be between 0 and 10 and |> scan the whole thing 11 times :)
Just put the constructors in 11 sections with names like initcall_0 ... initcall_10 and setup some symbols to find them, then you can get away with a single scanning pass.
Andreas.
-- Andreas Schwab "And now for something schwab@suse.de completely different." SuSE GmbH, Schanzäckerstr. 10, D-90443 Nürnberg
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |