[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081001061328.GD7348@colo.lackof.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 00:13:28 -0600
From: Grant Grundler <grundler@...isc-linux.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
Adam Belay <abelay@....edu>, Avuton Olrich <avuton@...il.com>,
Karl Bellve <karl.bellve@...ssmed.edu>,
Willem Riede <wriede@...de.org>,
Matthew Hall <mhall@...omputing.net>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] PNP: don't check disabled PCI BARs for conflicts
in quirk_system_pci_resources()
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:51:07PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
....
> But I think we could add a separate notion of a dependancy point, and have
> a setup where we describe "initcall X needs to happen before point A" and
> "initcall Z needs to happen after point A".
>
> And then we can create a separate set of these dependency points, so that
> X and Y don't have to know about each other, they just have to have some
> knowledge about some common synchronization point - one that exists
> regardless of whether X or Y are even compiled in!
We already do this today. :)
Definitions are in include/linux/init.h.
Point A would be "early" ("run before initialing SMP")
The rest could use better definitions and AFAICT aren't that much better
than being named "Point B".
hth,
grant
--
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