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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH] kbuild: implement modules.order
    • From: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] kbuild: implement modules.order
    • From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] kbuild: implement modules.order
    • From: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] kbuild: implement modules.order
    • From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 4/6] random: make backtracking attacks harder
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] depmod: sort output according to modules.order
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] kbuild: implement modules.order
• Next by thread: [PATCH 0/10] Integrate msr.h
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]