Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 08 May 2003 12:26:53 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: The magical mystical changing ethernet interface order |
| |
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/
| |