[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20121022170703.03a11f39.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:07:03 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc: minyard@....org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
OpenIPMI Developers <openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Corey Minyard <cminyard@...sta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] ACPI: Reorder IPMI driver before any other ACPI
drivers
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 01:00:34 +0100
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 04:45:38PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > Relying upon link ordering is the old-fashioned way of doing things,
> > and I have vague memories that it only works by luck - that there's no
> > hard-and-fast rule that the linker has to obey what we think we asked
> > it to do.
> >
> > The usual way of doing this sort of thing is to use the initcall
> > priority levels - core_initcall(), postcore_initcall(), etc. Can that
> > be done here?
>
> Not really - some of this code can be built as modules, so it's mostly
> module_init rather than anything from the initcall family.
>
hm. So the ACPI code has found a way to defeat depmod?
--
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