Messages in this thread |  | | | From | (Miquel van Smoorenburg) | | Subject | Re: [ANNOUNCE] udev 0.1 release | | Date | Sat, 12 Apr 2003 00:21:53 +0000 (UTC) |
| |
In article <20030412000829.GL4539@kroah.com>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: >On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 11:39:07PM +0000, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: >> Why not serialize /sbin/hotplug at the kernel level. Queue hotplug >> events and only allow one /sbin/hotplug to run at the same time. > >We don't want the kernel to stop based on a user program.
It would not stop if you queued the events.
What is the difference between queueing events to be read from a pipe or socket or queueing them for a kernel thread that empties the queue by executing /sbin/hotplug for each entry in the queue.
The pipe/socket solution is probably better anyway, I was just wondering why /sbin/hotplug wasn't serialized from the start.
Mike.
- 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/
|  |