Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762881AbZJOQXs (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:23:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758510AbZJOQXr (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:23:47 -0400 Received: from fifo99.com ([67.223.236.141]:60982 "EHLO fifo99.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758114AbZJOQXr (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:23:47 -0400 Subject: Re: Tips for module_init() dependencies From: Daniel Walker To: Gregory Haskins Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" In-Reply-To: <4AD74B02.1070606@gmail.com> References: <4AD71D12.9060203@gmail.com> <1255621559.22917.35.camel@desktop> <4AD7469B.9070907@gmail.com> <1255623129.22917.41.camel@desktop> <4AD74B02.1070606@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:21:37 -0700 Message-Id: <1255623697.22917.45.camel@desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1672 Lines: 44 On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 12:17 -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote: > Daniel Walker wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 11:58 -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote: > > > >> Hi Daniel, > >> > >> Possibly. > >> > >> A) Any suggestions on how? Can I express this in Kconfig or something > >> (i.e. "depends on FOO"). I currently have "select FOO" in the BAR > >> object, but this doesn't seem to be sufficient to describe the relationship. > >> > >> B) Do I have to make the entire chain follow suit? (I have C deps on B, > >> B deps on A kind of scenarios) > > > > Yeah, what Randy said .. As far as I know it should be just a build > > order issue .. In the make file when you specify your new module along > > with all the others where you put it is actually important .. In > > fs/Makefile you have this line, > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_CONFIGFS_FS) += configfs/ > > > > and I would guess you want yours after that line if your adding to that > > makefile. > > Right, that makes sense. However, the problem is that these > dependencies might not have anything to do with ./fs per se and > therefore would not necessarily be in the ./fs Makefile. But I think > the Makefile dependency idea in general is the right approach, so I will > experiment with this suggestion. I think the order for the core stuff is, kernel/ mm/ fs/ ipc/ security/ crypto/ block/ and that all comes before drivers/ , so your adding to kernel/ or mm/ ? Daniel -- 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/