[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061027231200.GA16102@aepfle.de>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 01:12:03 +0200 (MEST)
From: Olaf Hering <olaf@...fle.de>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...l.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz
Subject: Re: [patch] drivers: wait for threaded probes between initcall levels
On Fri, Oct 27, Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Gwe, 2006-10-27 am 11:42 -0700, ysgrifennodd Andrew Morton:
> > IOW, we want to be multithreaded _within_ an initcall level, but not between
> > different levels.
>
> Thats actually insufficient. We have link ordered init sequences in
> large numbers of driver subtrees (ATA, watchdog, etc). We'll need
> several more initcall layers to fix that.
Is it time for something better?
True dependencies, an addition to or as replacement for module_init()?
random example: hfs/super.c:
depends_on_initialized(init_hfs_fs: init_hfsplus_fs,kmem_cache_thingie,core_filesystem_thingie,foo,bar,worldpeace);
If init_hfsplus_fs() does not exist it should be no error.
Whatever the sytax will be and however its parsed during build, that link order
requirement bites every other month.
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists