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: <475B80C8.2070102@gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:44:40 +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:
> 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.

Expressing order in Makefile is a convenient way to express simple
ordering.  I think it's nice to keep it that way even if it doesn't
necessarily mean link order.  So, maybe we can do the reverse and make
built in modules follow module order regardless of actual link order
(say sort init table according to module order before final link).

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/