From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1M3p1M-00068Q-Bl
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 May 2009 06:15:36 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1M3p1H-00064S-3a
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 May 2009 06:15:35 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=39510 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1M3p1G-00064N-Pl
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 May 2009 06:15:30 -0400
Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:57693)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>)
	id 1M3p1G-0006Nr-Dr
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 May 2009 06:15:30 -0400
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4])
	by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1M3p1F-0005VY-5i
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 May 2009 06:15:29 -0400
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/4] Add module infrastructure to QEMU
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 11:15:25 +0100
References: <1242052009-27339-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>
	<4A08A087.9050708@us.ibm.com> <4A094392.3020000@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A094392.3020000@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200905121115.26317.paul@codesourcery.com>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>

> >> why not use the constructor priority?
> >
> > We're just using constructors to register our real constructors so
> > priority wouldn't really help us in the gcc constructors.
>
> Hmm?  Just call the real constructors in the order they are registered
> by the (prioritized) gcc constructors should do the trick, no?

You're missing the point. The "priority" field is mis-named. It's actually 
defining different categories of init function that are invoked when the 
corresponding bit of qemu want them (e.g. registration of block backends v.s. 
registration of character backends).

Paul