Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Jul 2004 08:12:18 +0800 | From | Trent Lloyd <> | Subject | Re: Future devfs plans (sorry for previous incomplete message) |
| |
I see your point, but I wonder how it differs from the current devfs implementation (i don't know how it works in these cases)
> Trent Lloyd <lathiat@bur.st> writes: > > > Wouldn't a possible solution to do this to develop an extension to tmpfs to > > catch files accessed that don't exist etc and use that in conjuction > > with udev? > > There is a problem with that scheme. Imagine that a program attempts > to access a non-existing device. The special fs would call modprobe > or similar which would load the correct module. Loading this module > would cause hotplug events upon which udev would create the device > node. However, all this is asynchronous. The special fs could wait > for a while for the device to appear, but this doesn't quite look like > a nice solution. The exit status of modprobe can't be used, since > even if the module loads perfectly it might not cause the requested > device to be created. Even if it does, there will be some delay from > the module being loaded to udev creating the device node, so how long > should the kernel wait for the device to appear? I haven't thought > about it further, but I smell races here. > > -- > M?ns Rullg?rd > mru@kth.se > > - > 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/
-- Trent Lloyd <lathiat@bur.st> Bur.st Networking Inc. - 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/
| |