Re: [PATCH] automatic module_init ordering

From: Rusty Russell (
Date: Tue Aug 06 2002 - 20:05:43 EST

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!
> >
> >
> 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.


  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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

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