Re: test10-pre7

H. Peter Anvin
2000-10-31T17:39:08Z

Followup to: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10010310912050.6866-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>
By author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> >
> > The thing that Keith's patch does is flush these things out into the
> > open. By using LINK_FIRST/LINK_LAST, we declare that "these are the
> > known issues" -- and then the rest of the objects are reordered, and if
> > something breaks, we track it down and add it to LINK_FIRST.
>
> But it doesn't even WORK.
>
> You need to have
>
> LINK_FIRST1
> LINK_FIRST2
> LINK_FIRST3
> ...
>
> etc to get the proper ordering.
>
> USB is the _easy_ case. There happen sto be only one file that cares about
> ordering.
>
> In many other cases, like SCSI, we need almost _total_ ordering. For such
> a case, theer is no "first" or "last" - there is a well-specific ORDER.
>

Sounds like what you actually need is LINK_BEFORE() LINK_AFTER() and a
topological sort.

-hpa
--
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."