On Nov 11, 2014 5:44 AM, "Masao Uebayashi" <uebay...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Thor Lancelot Simon <t...@panix.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 04:16:13PM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote: > >> Ideally the long hardcoded sequence of init functions in init_main:main() is > >> converted to a single vector whose order is resolved by modular dependency. > >> But for the moment such a hardcoded priority should be good enough to improve > >> modularity. > > > > I'm in favor of *any* way we do this so long as we get rid of the second copy > > of this code in rump. > > > > In fact, I'm in favor of *any config modification whatsoever* if we can get > > rid of the secret special version-7-unix kernel configuration "framework" of > > rump. > > You say as if rump did something wrong. :) I think rump only exposed > existing problems, not rump's faults. > > I guess .ctors should not be defined for rump. init_main.c is not > shared by rump, that is good (for me). > > Speaking of config(1), rump proved that partial (definition-only) use > of config works.
init_main.c should be shared by rump if possible but it is not modular enough. Justin