![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 01:03:33AM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 23:28, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > > On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 22:13, Greg KH wrote: > > > > Except if I miss something major, udevsend and udevd still do not > > work: > > > > Skip that, it does work if SEQNUM is set :P > > Anyhow, is it _really_ needed for SEQNUM to be set? What about > the attached patch? Yes it is necessary, as that is what the kernel spits out. It's also the whole reason we need udevd :) If you don't want to give a SEQNUM, just call udev directly. > Then, order I have not really checked yet, but there are two things > that bother me: > > 1) latency is even higher than before (btw Greg, is there going to be > more sysfs/whatever fixes to get udev even faster, or is this the > limit?) Care to measure the latency somehow? The first event is a bit slow, but everything after that is as fast as I ever remember it being. > 2) events gets missing. If you for example use udevsend in the > initscript that populate /dev (/udev), the amount of nodes/links > created is off with about 10-50 (once about 250) entries. Hm, that's not good. I'll go test that and see what's happening. thanks, greg k-h - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:00 [W:0.691 / U:0.010 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||