From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756004AbYFVUoM (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:44:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754605AbYFVUn6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:43:58 -0400 Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.239]:18869 "EHLO rv-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754593AbYFVUn5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:43:57 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=KiyMt9JYbYQ/F3HjUJ1cMY88WIN6n0xSRCDBMHHDLdLcGKYzrX5vGrX0Cg4iyshrYF fpW+0tQPPTYU+weCJulTtBFS70sWECA38D08LMc9wgKJ3HJez9mqVQG8jmAEEjDp881J Iwe541+FrbTrJ3cwuOJU9tf6KXeP4RQ6vz/Jw= Message-ID: <19f34abd0806221343o3a9e3951j1448e968f9ba9684@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:43:55 +0200 From: "Vegard Nossum" To: "Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Better interface for hooking early initcalls. Cc: "Pekka Enberg" , tzanussi@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, compudj@krystal.dyndns.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20080622233848.50f14605@linux360.ro> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080621171051.5ed3b522@linux360.ro> <84144f020806221222s7498593ap7cad427405fb6776@mail.gmail.com> <20080622233848.50f14605@linux360.ro> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:38 PM, Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu wrote: > Will do, good idea. However, I feel like these should be two different > patches. The first adds the new interface, the second converts existing > users to the new interface. Will resubmit the patch series soon, along > with the conversion patch. By the way -- may I ask why it is called early_initcall() and not pre_smp_initcall()? I think it makes sense to encode the exact purpose of the initcall into the name. "early" is not very explicit. This is just my opinion :-) Thanks. Vegard -- "The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation." -- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036