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 08:09:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 08:09:02 -0500 Received: from router-100M.swansea.linux.org.uk ([194.168.151.17]:42761 "EHLO the-village.bc.nu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 08:08:50 -0500 Subject: Re: Where did vm_operations_struct->unmap in 2.4.0 go? To: kaos@ocs.com.au (Keith Owens) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:09:13 +0000 (GMT) Cc: dwmw2@infradead.org (David Woodhouse), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (List Linux-Kernel) In-Reply-To: <17071.979217174@ocs3.ocs-net> from "Keith Owens" at Jan 11, 2001 11:46:14 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Alan Cox Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Stick to one method that works for all routines, dynamic registration. > If that imposes the occasional need for a couple of extra calls in some > routines and for people to think about initialisation order right from > the start then so be it, it is a small price to pay for long term > stability and ease of maintenance. What happens when we get a loop in init order because of binding and other init order conflicts? - 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/