linux-kernel - Re: Questions about porting perfmon2 to powerpc

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 5 Apr 2007 22:37:01 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Cc:	Kevin Corry <kevcorry@...ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Carl Love <carll@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Questions about porting perfmon2 to powerpc

On Thursday 05 April 2007, Kevin Corry wrote:
> For the moment, I made the change to topology_init() since it was the simplest 
> fix to get things working. I have considered switching the perfmon2 
> initialization to __initcall(), but there are apparently some timing issues 
> with ensuring that the perfmon2 core code is initialized before any of its 
> sub-modules. Since they could all be compiled statically in the kernel, I'm 
> not sure if there's a way to ensure the ordering of calls within a single 
> initcall level. I'll need to ask Stephane if there were any other reasons why 
> subsys_initcall() was used for perfmon2.

If they all come from the same directory, you can simply order them in
the Makefile. If a module in arch/ needs to be initialized after one in
drivers/, that's not possible though, and changing topology_init() should
be the best option.

	Arnd <><
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/