On 30/10/14 17:28, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
Is there a problem rototilling config is going to solve over what
is possible with the existing mechanism (*)?
You're welcomed to fix any problems without rotorill and/or breakage.
You're not answering the question.
*) you probably also heard that rump kernels have constructors with
priority levels, implemented using link sets
Do you hardcode the priority?
Yes. They are easy to hardcode, as you can observe from working code,
and I don't see the need for a complex mechanism. There's really only
~10, and even less for the full kernel, since you don't need to worry
about things like "will vfs be present" or "when do i configure the
address for lo0". Even if you'd want to worry about for example the
latter one, how would you express it with config?
But let's consider some magic values are generated by config in a
fashion which works in a non-monolithic build. How will anything be
different if you touch or don't touch linksets, i.e. how is your
question relevant in this discussion?
Cleaning up init_main() is an ambitious project. I don't know if config
is the right tool for that (I don't know it's _not_, either). I do know
that it's complete orthogonal to how linksets are implemented.
