From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752865AbXLIFoz (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2007 00:44:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750985AbXLIFos (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2007 00:44:48 -0500 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.180]:10044 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750894AbXLIFor (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2007 00:44:47 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ttbIbbkFjTFp8/zsUI2g66OhRX0lqC46QpBJG8zDQdFSd3PsOsBJN8suKgdUBsmpL6DBbjxkuQFBJJErXL9vGw4rXjHi95FvzN7cp8k2LpsQmhOvIbrmtGGhLN+5nCA0sTJpxjnzMYdcILumavI8qUSDumnpJM6Xfm5WP2/D6OE= Message-ID: <475B80C8.2070102@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:44:40 +0900 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070801) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Bunk CC: sam@ravnborg.org, Linux Kernel , notting@redhat.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, kay.sievers@vrfy.org, greg@kroah.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] kbuild: implement modules.order References: <47555AF1.8090304@gmail.com> <20071207174843.GA20441@stusta.de> <4759DE63.7010206@gmail.com> <20071208142831.GB20441@stusta.de> In-Reply-To: <20071208142831.GB20441@stusta.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Adrian Bunk wrote: > And thinking about it, it doesn't seem to add any problems regarding > what I have in mind: > > If we would ever stop having any well-defined link-order for in-kernel > code and express everything through initcall levels, we simply must > additionally update the modules.order file. Expressing order in Makefile is a convenient way to express simple ordering. I think it's nice to keep it that way even if it doesn't necessarily mean link order. So, maybe we can do the reverse and make built in modules follow module order regardless of actual link order (say sort init table according to module order before final link). Thanks. -- tejun