lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Remove broken by design and by implementation devtmpfs maintenance disaster
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> writes:

> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 06:54:39 -0700
> ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
>
>>
>> > I don't understand. Udev applies the final policy including
>> > permissions/ownership, just as before. There is no differrence. It's
>> > just that you can bring up a box without complex userspace to
>> > bootstrap /dev. And that's a big win on its own.
>>
>> udev is too complex to use? That sounds like a userspace bug.
>>
>> This I guess is where I am baffled. The argument for devtmpfs
>> always seem to boil down to: udev sucks let's write some kernel
>> code instead.
>>
>> I have been trying to ask for a long time why we can't just fix
>> udev to not suck.
>>
>> > And things like
>> > "modprobe loop; losetup /dev/loop0" will just work, which it doesn't
>> > with todays async udev. Again, please make yourself familiar how
>> > things work, and what the problems are.
>>
>> I guess I don't understand why
>> modprobe loop; losetup /dev/loop0 is an interesting case.
>> When you can just as easily do:
>> modprobe loop; udevadm settle; losetup /dev/loop0.
>
> frankly, modprobe should call the settle.
> And not just this one, but we can use this to settle other things as
> well... and then it can get an --async command line option for the
> cases where you know you don't want to synchronize.

I think this would be a bit of a pain when I modprobe a network
driver and the udev scripts trigger a blocking dhcp on the device.

If this is a major pain point in initscripts I can see how it would
make sense.

Eric


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-18 16:45    [W:1.366 / U:0.328 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site