Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264126AbTEORVb (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 May 2003 13:21:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264127AbTEORVb (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 May 2003 13:21:31 -0400 Received: from air-2.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:50092 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264126AbTEORV2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 May 2003 13:21:28 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 10:34:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Patrick Mochel X-X-Sender: mochel@cherise To: Zwane Mwaikambo cc: Andrew Morton , , Felipe Alfaro Solana Subject: Re: 2.5.69-mm5: reverting i8259-shutdown.patch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1068 Lines: 25 > Pat what do you say to some late shutdown callbacks? I'll drop you a > patch sometime tommorrow. Bah. It would work, but it's a hack. We'll get caught in a game similar to the leap-frogging initcalls. In fact, we could just get really twisted and define various levels of exitcalls. [ Or, do them implicitly with some linkser-section-fu by calling the modules' exit functions in the reverse order in which they were initialized, but that's another story. ] I just think that system level devices need to be treated specially in every case. They just don't work as normal devices because of the ordering issue. We can keep a separate list of them and deal with them explicitly after regular devices. It's not that bad of a change, but will take a few days, unless someone wants to take a stab at it.. -pat - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/