On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 08:59:31AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 10:49:37PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > >> When multiple built-in modules (especially drivers) provide the same > >> capability, they're prioritized by link order specified by the order > >> listed in Makefile. This implicit ordering is lost for loadable > >> modules. > >> ... > > > > What exactly are the drivers you are thinking of? > > > > I would rather see us getting away from any link order dependencies. > > > > E.g. we might one day want to compile the whole kernel with one gcc call > > (using "--combine -fwhole-program"). > > The following bugzilla triggered this change and I think contains enough > discussion on the subject. > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8933 > > Thanks.
Thanks, that explains much. And thinking about it, it doesn't seem to add any problems regarding what I have in mind: If we would ever stop having any well-defined link-order for in-kernel code and express everything through initcall levels, we simply must additionally update the modules.order file. > tejun cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/