On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 11:01:33AM +0800, Youling Tang wrote:
> - It doesn't feel good to have only one subinit/exit in a file.
> Assuming that there is only one file in each file, how do we
> ensure that the files are linked in order?(Is it sorted by *.o
> in the Makefile?)
Yes, link order
On Thu, Jul 25, 2024, at 16:39, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 11:01:33AM +0800, Youling Tang wrote:
>> - It doesn't feel good to have only one subinit/exit in a file.
>> Assuming that there is only one file in each file, how do we
>> ensure that the files are linked in orde
On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 05:30:58PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Now I think we could just make the module_init() macro
> do the same thing as a built-in initcall() and put
> an entry in a special section, to let you have multiple
> entry points in a loadable module.
>
> There are still at least t
On 25/07/2024 17.34, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 05:30:58PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Now I think we could just make the module_init() macro
do the same thing as a built-in initcall() and put
an entry in a special section, to let you have multiple
entry points in a loadabl
On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 07:14:14PM +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> Instead of relying to the "expected" order of the compiler/linker,
> why doesn't manage the chain explicitly ? Something like:
Because that doesn't actually solve anything over simple direct calls
as you still need the symbols
