How about the order of Network stack initialize

How about the order of Network stack initialize

[Huangqiang Zhou]

Hi all：

I have a question about the order of  network stack initialize.

From some books it says the order is as below:
1.core_initcall: sock_init
2.fs_initcall: inet_init
3.subsys_initcall: net_dev_init
4.device_initcall: device init

in the source code of linux2.6.18:
#define core_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("1",fn)
#define postcore_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("2",fn)
#define arch_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("3",fn)
#define subsys_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("4",fn)
#define fs_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("5",fn)
#define device_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("6",fn)
#define late_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("7",fn)

obviously:
macro                 section
core_initcall <--> .initcall1.init 
fs_initcall <--> .initcall5.init
subsys_initcall <--> .initcall4.init
device_intcall <--> .initcall6.init

Some also says：
“Every child is to determine the sequence between sections, the first call. Initcall1 init. 
 The function pointer, again. Initcall2 init. Call the function pointer, etc. And in each section 
 of the function pointer is associated with links to order, is uncertain ”

 As the above says, the order should be: core_initcall->subsys_initcall->fs_initcall->device_intcall

So which one is really correct?

2010-09-15 
Huangqiang Zhou

Re: How about the order of Network stack initialize

[Randy Dunlap]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:06:16 +0800 Huangqiang Zhou wrote:

> Hi all：
> 
> I have a question about the order of  network stack initialize.
> 
> From some books it says the order is as below:
> 1.core_initcall: sock_init
> 2.fs_initcall: inet_init
> 3.subsys_initcall: net_dev_init
> 4.device_initcall: device init
> 
> in the source code of linux2.6.18:
> #define core_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("1",fn)
> #define postcore_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("2",fn)
> #define arch_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("3",fn)
> #define subsys_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("4",fn)
> #define fs_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("5",fn)
> #define device_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("6",fn)
> #define late_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("7",fn)
> 
> obviously:
> macro                 section
> core_initcall <--> .initcall1.init 
> fs_initcall <--> .initcall5.init
> subsys_initcall <--> .initcall4.init
> device_intcall <--> .initcall6.init
> 
> Some also says：
> “Every child is to determine the sequence between sections, the first call. Initcall1 init. 
>  The function pointer, again. Initcall2 init. Call the function pointer, etc. And in each section 
>  of the function pointer is associated with links to order, is uncertain ”
> 
>  As the above says, the order should be: core_initcall->subsys_initcall->fs_initcall->device_intcall
> 
> So which one is really correct?
> 
> 2010-09-15 
> Huangqiang Zhou

Hi,

BTW, did you find out anything from your previous posting's answers?

http://marc.info/?l=linux-net&m=128443018603483&w=2

---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***

Re: How about the order of Network stack initialize

[Randy Dunlap]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 08:48:09 +0800 Huangqiang Zhou wrote:

> Hi:
> yes, i have found the answer.
> 
> "please refer to the macro definition INITCALLS in the header file
> include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h -- many definitions are moved to
> this file now." --- by Randy Dunlap 
> 

That answer was
From:	Tony Wan <visual2me@gmail.com>


> 
> 2010-09-19 
> 
> 
> 
> Huangqiang Zhou 
> 
> 
> 
> 发件人： Randy Dunlap 
> 发送时间： 2010-09-18  05:19:50 
> 收件人： Huangqiang Zhou 
> 抄送： ly; linux-net; netdev 
> 主题： Re: How about the order of Network stack initialize 
>  
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:06:16 +0800 Huangqiang Zhou wrote:
> > Hi all：
> > 
> > I have a question about the order of  network stack initialize.
> > 
> > From some books it says the order is as below:
> > 1.core_initcall: sock_init
> > 2.fs_initcall: inet_init
> > 3.subsys_initcall: net_dev_init
> > 4.device_initcall: device init
> > 
> > in the source code of linux2.6.18:
> > #define core_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("1",fn)
> > #define postcore_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("2",fn)
> > #define arch_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("3",fn)
> > #define subsys_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("4",fn)
> > #define fs_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("5",fn)
> > #define device_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("6",fn)
> > #define late_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("7",fn)
> > 
> > obviously:
> > macro                 section
> > core_initcall <--> .initcall1.init 
> > fs_initcall <--> .initcall5.init
> > subsys_initcall <--> .initcall4.init
> > device_intcall <--> .initcall6.init
> > 
> > Some also says：
> > “Every child is to determine the sequence between sections, the first call. Initcall1 init. 
> >  The function pointer, again. Initcall2 init. Call the function pointer, etc. And in each section 
> >  of the function pointer is associated with links to order, is uncertain ”
> > 
> >  As the above says, the order should be: core_initcall->subsys_initcall->fs_initcall->device_intcall
> > 
> > So which one is really correct?
> > 
> > 2010-09-15 
> > Huangqiang Zhou
> Hi,
> BTW, did you find out anything from your previous posting's answers?
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-net&m=128443018603483&w=2
> ---
> ~Randy
> *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***


---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***