How about the order of Network stack initialize

Hi all：

I have a question about the order of network stack initialize.

From some books it says the order is as below:
1.core_initcall: sock_init
2.fs_initcall: inet_init
3.subsys_initcall: net_dev_init
4.device_initcall: device init

in the source code of linux2.6.18:
#define core_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("1",fn) #define postcore_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("2",fn) #define arch_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("3",fn) #define subsys_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("4",fn) #define fs_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("5",fn) #define device_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("6",fn) #define late_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("7",fn)

obviously:
macro section
core_initcall <--> .initcall1.init
fs_initcall <--> .initcall5.init
subsys_initcall <--> .initcall4.init
device_intcall <--> .initcall6.init

Some also says：
“Every child is to determine the sequence between sections, the first call. Initcall1 init.
The function pointer, again. Initcall2 init. Call the function pointer, etc. And in each section of the function pointer is associated with links to order, is uncertain ”

As the above says, the order should be: core_initcall->subsys_initcall->fs_initcall->device_intcall

So which one is really correct?

2010-09-15
Huangqiang Zhou

Hi:
yes, i have found the answer.

"please refer to the macro definition INITCALLS in the header file include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h -- many definitions are moved to this file now." --- by Randy Dunlap

2010-09-19

Huangqiang Zhou

发件人： Randy Dunlap
发送时间： 2010-09-18 05:19:50
收件人： Huangqiang Zhou
抄送： ly; linux-net; netdev
主题： Re: How about the order of Network stack initialize

Quoted 35 lines · On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:06:16 +0800 Huangqiang Zhou wrote:

Hi all：

I have a question about the order of network stack initialize.

From some books it says the order is as below:
1.core_initcall: sock_init
2.fs_initcall: inet_init
3.subsys_initcall: net_dev_init
4.device_initcall: device init

in the source code of linux2.6.18:
#define core_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("1",fn) #define postcore_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("2",fn) #define arch_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("3",fn) #define subsys_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("4",fn) #define fs_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("5",fn) #define device_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("6",fn) #define late_initcall(fn) __define_initcall("7",fn)

obviously:
macro section
core_initcall <--> .initcall1.init
fs_initcall <--> .initcall5.init
subsys_initcall <--> .initcall4.init
device_intcall <--> .initcall6.init

Some also says：
“Every child is to determine the sequence between sections, the first call. Initcall1 init.
The function pointer, again. Initcall2 init. Call the function pointer, etc. And in each section of the function pointer is associated with links to order, is uncertain ”

As the above says, the order should be: core_initcall->subsys_initcall->fs_initcall->device_intcall

So which one is really correct?

Quoted 2 lines

2010-09-15
Huangqiang Zhou

Hi,
BTW, did you find out anything from your previous posting's answers?
http://marc.info/?l=linux-net&m=128443018603483&w=2
---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***