On Nov 11, 2014 5:44 AM, "Masao Uebayashi" <uebayasi%gmail.com@localhost> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 04:16:13PM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
> >> Ideally the long hardcoded sequence of init functions in init_main:main() is
> >> converted to a single vector whose order is resolved by modular dependency.
> >> But for the moment such a hardcoded priority should be good enough to improve
> >> modularity.
> >
> > I'm in favor of *any* way we do this so long as we get rid of the second copy
> > of this code in rump.
> >
> > In fact, I'm in favor of *any config modification whatsoever* if we can get
> > rid of the secret special version-7-unix kernel configuration "framework" of
> > rump.
>
> You say as if rump did something wrong. :) I think rump only exposed
> existing problems, not rump's faults.
>
> I guess .ctors should not be defined for rump. init_main.c is not
> shared by rump, that is good (for me).
>
> Speaking of config(1), rump proved that partial (definition-only) use
> of config works.
init_main.c should be shared by rump if possible but it is not modular enough.
Justin