From: "Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu>
To: kaos@ocs.com.au (Keith Owens)
Cc: acahalan@cs.uml.edu (Albert D. Cahalan), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kernel-2.4.0-test11 crashed again; this time i send you the Oops-message
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 00:41:01 -0500 (EST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200011250541.eAP5f1s242513@saturn.cs.uml.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3445.974945945@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com> from "Keith Owens" at Nov 23, 2000 01:19:05 PM
Keith Owens writes:
> "Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> wrote:
>> The infamous LINK_FIRST infrastructure was sort of half-way done.
>>
>> It would be best to cause drivers with an unspecified link order
>> to move around a bit, so that errors may be discovered more quickly.
>
> The "other" list in LINK_FIRST is sorted by name. It could be changed
> to a random sort, probably based on a hash of size and mtime. It would
> be relatively expensive so would have to be restricted to a "exercise
> the kernel" CONFIG option.
Yes, throwing out the low bits of mtime so that everybody gets the
same link order for a week. (must be able to reproduce failures)
>> LINK_FIRST is pretty coarse. One would want a topological sort,
>> or at least LINK_0 through LINK_9 _without_ anything else.
>
> There is no need for multiple LINK_n entries, the objects partition
> neatly into three groups. LINK_FIRST objects, in the order they are
> defined. The rest of the objects (object list - (LINK_FIRST +
> LINK_LAST), in an undefined order. LINK_LAST objects, in the order
> they are defined.
Ah, but then Linus has an argument to crush you. There is no
reason left to have anything but LINK_FIRST, and so the rest
is redundant and you can just kill the whole idea.
Going with multiple LINK_n entries and nothing else makes it
possible to make order dynamic within any LINK_n group. This
forces eventual discovery of any problems.
> If you can come up with a concrete link order example that
> cannot be handled by a three partition model then I will
> listen. Otherwise it is just over engineering.
The three-partition model is over-engineering, because it adds
extra complexity without getting rid of the fixed-order group.
Instead you get two fixed-order groups and one dynamic-order one.
If we are to leave the current model of a single fixed-order
group, then we ought to switch to something else uniform.
The three groups you desribe just isn't very regular.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-11-25 6:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-11-20 21:03 Oliver Poths
2000-11-20 21:22 ` Tigran Aivazian
2000-11-20 22:07 ` Oliver Poths
[not found] ` <20001120.22074300@rock>
2000-11-20 22:52 ` Neil Brown
2000-11-23 1:07 ` Peter Samuelson
2000-11-23 1:58 ` Albert D. Cahalan
2000-11-23 2:19 ` Keith Owens
2000-11-25 5:41 ` Albert D. Cahalan [this message]
2000-11-23 2:42 ` Peter Samuelson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200011250541.eAP5f1s242513@saturn.cs.uml.edu \
--to=acahalan@cs.uml.edu \
--cc=kaos@ocs.com.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®