From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932451Ab2JWAAo (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 22 Oct 2012 20:00:44 -0400
Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:35141 "EHLO
	cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932102Ab2JWAAn (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 22 Oct 2012 20:00:43 -0400
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 01:00:34 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: minyard@acm.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        OpenIPMI Developers <openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net>,
        Corey Minyard <cminyard@mvista.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] ACPI: Reorder IPMI driver before any other ACPI
 drivers
Message-ID: <20121023000033.GA11756@srcf.ucam.org>
References: <1350420820-7156-1-git-send-email-minyard@acm.org>
 <1350420820-7156-3-git-send-email-minyard@acm.org>
 <20121022164538.3b707397.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20121022164538.3b707397.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mjg59@cavan.codon.org.uk
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on cavan.codon.org.uk); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 04:45:38PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:

> Relying upon link ordering is the old-fashioned way of doing things,
> and I have vague memories that it only works by luck - that there's no
> hard-and-fast rule that the linker has to obey what we think we asked
> it to do.
> 
> The usual way of doing this sort of thing is to use the initcall
> priority levels - core_initcall(), postcore_initcall(), etc.  Can that
> be done here?

Not really - some of this code can be built as modules, so it's mostly 
module_init rather than anything from the initcall family.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org