[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071208142831.GB20441@stusta.de>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 15:28:31 +0100
From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
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
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 08:59:31AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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.
Thanks, that explains much.
And thinking about it, it doesn't seem to add any problems regarding
what I have in mind:
If we would ever stop having any well-defined link-order for in-kernel
code and express everything through initcall levels, we simply must
additionally update the modules.order file.
> tejun
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
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