On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 18:53 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
quoted text
> Le Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:03:12 -0800,
> Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> a écrit :
> 
> > > > This is not quite what Peter and I were thinking of, I think.
> > > > It's not at all generic. How about a section that simply contains
> > > > a set of function pointers, a macro to add things to that
> > > > section, and a function that calls all the pointers in that
> > > > section. Eg:
> > > > 
> > > > CALLBACK_SECTION(init_cpu_amd, "cpuvendor.init");
> > > > invoke_callback_section("cpuvendor.init");
> > > > 
> > > > ..which would give us a generic facility we could use in various
> > > > places.
> > > 
> > > I see. Probably doable. How would it work in the LD script file ?
> > > Your mechanism allows to specify any section name, but AFAIK, the
> > > sections must be explicitly listed in the kernel LD script in order
> > > to be included in the final kernel image. Am I missing something ?
> > 
> > I can't see any way to avoid it, but we can leave it to future
> > generations to come up with something more clever.
> 
> After a quick look at the LD documentation, it seems that wildcards are
> supported in the input section names of the linker script. So that the
> CALLBACK_SECTION() macro could add the function pointer to a section
> named:
> 
>    gcm. ## name
> 
> (gcm standing for "generic callback mechanism") and then, in the linker
> script, do:
> 
>    *(gcm.*)
> 
> I'm going to try that.

Sounds great! But I'd rather the base name be "callback" so it'll be
obvious what it is when people dump section names.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/