On 2/20/2017 2:17 PM, Jan Blunck wrote: > This introduces different initcall macros to allow for late registration of > the virtual device bus. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <jblu...@infradead.org> > Tested-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
<...> > > -#define RTE_INIT(func) \ > -static void __attribute__((constructor, used)) func(void) > +#define RTE_EAL_INIT(func) \ > +static void __attribute__((constructor(101), used)) func(void) > + > +#define RTE_POST_EAL_INIT(func) \ > +static void __attribute__((constructor(102), used)) func(void) > + > +#define RTE_DEV_INIT(func) \ > +static void __attribute__((constructor(103), used)) func(void) > + > +#define RTE_INIT(func) RTE_DEV_INIT(func) Does it make sense to give some gaps among priorities, 101, 102, 103 --> 100, 200 , 300 When new priorities added (not sure if that ever will happen), is changing previous priorities cause a ABI breakage?
