Re: The magical mystical changing ethernet interface order

[Jeff Garzik]

David S. Miller wrote:
>    From: Alan Cox <[e-mail]>
>    Date: 08 May 2003 15:55:31 +0100
> 
>    Unfortunately for the ISA driver code we *have* to rely on link
>    order or rip out the __init stuff and use Space.c type hacks.
>    
> I do no argue that needing an invocation order is bogus.
> I merely disagree with the way we're trying to achieve it.
> 
> You don't need Space.c magic, the linker in binutils has mechanisms by
> which this can be accomplished and we already use this in 2.5.x
> 
> Have a peek at __define_initcall($NUM,fn), imagine it with one more
> argument $PRIO.  It might look like this:
> 
> #define __define_initcall(level,prio,fn) \
>         static initcall_t __initcall_##fn __attribute__
>         ((unused,__section__ ("\.initcall" level "." prio ".init"))) = fn
> 
> Use the 'prio' number to define the ordering.  The default for
> modules that don't care about relative ordering within a class
> use a value like "9999" or something like that.

Linus has traditionally resisted this, and pushed for the 
link-order-defines-init-order bit.

However, that was years ago.  Patrick Mochel added the current 
seven-levels-of-initcall, which is where the referenced 
__define_initcall originated.

I agree with you, and would prefer to move away from any dependence on 
link order...

	Jeff