Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 14:54:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 14:54:07 -0400 Received: from smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.138]:3588 "EHLO smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 14:54:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 20:57:00 +0200 (CEST) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@serv To: Rusty Russell cc: Kai Germaschewski , Subject: Re: [PATCH] automatic module_init ordering In-Reply-To: <20020806073804.2E30F4BA3@lists.samba.org> 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: 1054 Lines: 30 Hi, On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, Rusty Russell wrote: > > - I use a separate initcall for the module initialization, that's the > > only way I can solve my IDE problems. > > That's horrible 8( I think we need figure out why this is happening: > do you know? What does it actually need? I think pci initialization. > I've updated my explicit core initcalls patch on top of your new one, > thanks! > > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rusty/Misc/ordered-core-initcalls.patch.2.5.30.gz I'm not sure we should go this way. My main problem is that it only solves a single ordering problem - boot time ordering. What about suspend/wakeup? We have more of these ordering problems and driverfs is supposed to help with them, so I'd rather first would like to see how much we can fix this way. bye, Roman - 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/