On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Stefan Richter <stefanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Manish Katiyar wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Manish Katiyar <mkatiyar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Below is the updated patch >> >> Hi Stefan, >> >> Has this been accepted, or is it still not worth it ? > > Your last posting looked good to me. But I am not the one to take it; Thanks a lot for your response Stefan. I understand that this doesn't lie in purview of Ingo's interest, but since one of the kernel maintainers is already in the mail chain, Ingo can it be pulled by you, else I will send it to andrew or probably trivial@xxxxxxxxxxx > I > just looked at the thread coincidentally. > > One thing that wasn't answered in the discussion is whether > device_initcall is not only the equivalent but also the /best/ > replacement of __initcall, specifically for kallsyms_init. (Maybe it > should be something else; then a mechanical replacement by > device_initcall would lower awareness of the issue --- if there is an > issue. There probably isn't, but I don't know.) hmm... I don't know much about this, and googling doesn't give anything significant. Thanks - Manish > -- > Stefan Richter > -=====-==--= --== ---== > http://arcgraph.de/sr/ > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
