[Horst von Brand] > Would tsort(1) perhaps help? I'm betting Linus would never go for using tsort to resolve such issues -- unless tsort output is guaranteed to be stable (the docs for GNU textutils don't say). This would be for the same reason that he rejected the partial ordering in the LINK_FIRST patch -- because it was only partial ordering and he thinks total ordering is necessary. For me, BTW, that's still an article of faith -- I still do not see why total ordering *is* necessary, but <shrug> thus saith the penguin. Peter - 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/
- Re: [PATCH] link time error in drivers/mtd (240t13p2) Keith Owens
- Re: [PATCH] link time error in drivers/mtd (240t13p2) David Woodhouse
- Re: [PATCH] link time error in drivers/mtd (240t1... Keith Owens
- Re: [PATCH] link time error in drivers/mtd (2... David Woodhouse
- Re: [PATCH] link time error in drivers/mt... Keith Owens
- Re: [PATCH] link time error in drive... David Woodhouse
- Re: [PATCH] link time error in d... Keith Owens
- Re: [PATCH] link time error in d... David Woodhouse
- Re: [PATCH] link time error in drive... Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] link time error in drivers/mtd (2... Horst von Brand
- Re: [PATCH] link time error in drivers/mt... Peter Samuelson
- Re: [PATCH] link time error in drivers/mtd (240t13p2) David Woodhouse