On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Alexander Holler <hol...@ahsoftware.de> wrote: > > Otherwise it's impossible to call initcalls in parallel. I've seen a stable > topological sort somewhere, but whenever you want to parallelize the > initcalls, the stable ordering would be gone anyway. So I've decided not to > look further at a stable topological sort.
So five seconds of googling gave me freely usable source code for a stable topological sort, that also has a nice reported added advantage: "An interesting property of a stable topological sort is that cyclic dependencies are tolerated and resolved according to original order of elements in sequence. This is a desirable feature for many applications because it allows to sort any sequence with any imaginable dependencies between the elements" which seems to be *exactly* what you'd want, especially considering that right now your patches add extra "no-dependency" markers exactly because of the cyclical problem. I think it was the #2 hit on google for "stable topological sort". I didn't look closely at the source code, but it was not big. And no, since we don't actually want to parallelize the initcalls anyway (I had this discussion with you just a month ago), your objections seem even more questionable. We have separate machinery for "do this asynchronously", and we want to _keep_ that separate. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/