Jean Tourrilhes <jt@bougret.hpl.hp.com> said:
[...]
> The problem is *not* the networking initialisation (I wish
> people were *reading* my e-mails). The basic networking is initialised
> early enough. The various networking stacks could be initialised
> earlier, but I don't depend on them. Note that there might be a reason
> to initialise networking after the file system, so to do that we might
> need to insert a level between fs_initcall() and device_initcall().
If you insert enough levels, you are in another form of madness.
There should be a way of saying "This must be initialized after this, and
before that" (the "before that" might perhaps be taken care of by the
"that" itself). Spiced with a few "barriers": "Networking inited", etc.
>From there the build system should figure it out by itself. tsort(1) on an
appropiate bunch of descriptive one-liners (extracted from the sources?)
should give the right initialization order, or error out.
Yes, I know this has been proposed before and been thrown out (for no good
reason, AFAICS)
-- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513 - 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 : Fri Jun 07 2002 - 22:00:16 EST