Re: kernel constructor

[Masao Uebayashi <uebayasi%gmail.com@localhost>]

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.