On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Keith Owens wrote: > The rest of the kernel already depends totally on these "subtle" issues > with link order. Why should mtd be different? Because I maintain the MTD code and I want it to be. I think the link order dependencies are ugly, unnecessary and far more likely to be problematic then the alternatives. I'll code an alternative which is cleaner than the current code, and Linus can either accept it or not, as he sees fit. -- dwmw2 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- [PATCH] link time error in drivers/mtd (240t13p2) Rasmus Andersen
- Re: [PATCH] link time error in drivers/mtd (240t13p2) Keith Owens
- Re: [PATCH] link time error in drivers/mtd (240t1... David Woodhouse
- Re: [PATCH] link time error in drivers/mtd (2... Keith Owens
- Re: [PATCH] link time error in drivers/mt... David Woodhouse
- Re: [PATCH] link time error in drive... Keith Owens
- Re: [PATCH] link time error in d... David Woodhouse
- Re: [PATCH] link time error ... Keith Owens
- Re: [PATCH] link time error ... David Woodhouse
- Re: [PATCH] link time error in d... Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] link time error in drivers/mt... Horst von Brand
- Re: [PATCH] link time error in drive... Peter Samuelson
- Re: [PATCH] link time error in drivers/mtd (240t13p2) David Woodhouse