From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:14:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:14:01 -0500 Received: from obelix.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de ([134.109.132.55]:27375 "EHLO obelix.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:13:44 -0500 Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:12:47 +0100 From: Ingo Oeser To: Keith Owens Cc: Alan Cox , David Woodhouse , List Linux-Kernel Subject: Re: Where did vm_operations_struct->unmap in 2.4.0 go? Message-ID: <20010112031247.E10035@nightmaster.csn.tu-chemnitz.de> In-Reply-To: <17544.979218884@ocs3.ocs-net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <17544.979218884@ocs3.ocs-net>; from kaos@ocs.com.au on Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 12:14:44AM +1100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 12:14:44AM +1100, Keith Owens wrote: > >What happens when we get a loop in init order because of binding and other init > >order conflicts? > > The kernel does not support circular dependencies between providers and > consumers. It does not matter whether they are built into vmlinux or > loaded as modules, there can be no loops in the directed graph of > dependencies. It just does not make sense. So why don't we use sth. like depmod for these issues and get the link order automagically (like we get module load order)? Keith: Perhaps you could explain, why this is impossible. Regards Ingo Oeser -- 10.+11.03.2001 - 3. Chemnitzer LinuxTag <<<<<<<<<<<< come and join the fun >>>>>>>>>>>> - 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/