linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kbuild: implement modules.order

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]

Message-ID: <4759DE63.7010206@gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 08 Dec 2007 08:59:31 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
CC:	sam@...nborg.org, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	notting@...hat.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, kay.sievers@...y.org,
	greg@...ah.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kbuild: implement modules.order

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 10:49:37PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> When multiple built-in modules (especially drivers) provide the same
>> capability, they're prioritized by link order specified by the order
>> listed in Makefile.  This implicit ordering is lost for loadable
>> modules.
>> ...
> 
> What exactly are the drivers you are thinking of?
> 
> I would rather see us getting away from any link order dependencies.
> 
> E.g. we might one day want to compile the whole kernel with one gcc call 
> (using "--combine -fwhole-program").

The following bugzilla triggered this change and I think contains enough
discussion on the subject.

  http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8933

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/