Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:12:38 +0100 | From | Cornelia Huck <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] New kobject/kset/ktype documentation and example code |
| |
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:57:48 +0100, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 16:48 +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:23:02 +0100, > > Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 12:45 +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:02:52 -0800, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: > > > > > > The uevent function will be called when the uevent is about to be sent to > > > > > userspace to allow more environment variables to be added to the uevent. > > > > > > > > It may be helpful to mention which uevents are by default created by > > > > the kobject core (KOBJ_ADD, KOBJ_DEL, KOBJ_MOVE). > > > > > > I think, we should remove all these default events from the kobject > > > core. We will not be able to manage the timing issues and "raw" kobject > > > users should request the events on their own, when they are finished > > > adding stuff to the kobject. I see currently no way to solve the > > > "attributes created after the event" problem. The new > > > *_create_and_register functions do not allow default attributes to be > > > created, which will just lead to serious trouble when someone wants to > > > use udev to set defaults and such things. We may just want to require an > > > explicit call to send the event? > > > > There will always be attributes that will show up later (for example, > > after a device is activated). Probably the best approach is to keep the > > default uevents, but have the attribute-adder send another uevent when > > they are done? > > Uh, that's more an exception where we can't give guarantees because of > very specific hardware setups, and it would be an additional "change" > event. There are valid cases for this, but only a _very_ few. > > There is absolutely no reason not to do it right with the "add" event, > just because we are too lazy to solve it proper the current code. It's > just so broken by design, what we are doing today. :)
I'm worrying a bit about changes that impact the whole code tree in lots of places. I'd be fine with the device layer doing its uevent manually in device_add() at the very end, though. (This would allow drivers to add attributes in their probe function before the uevent, for example.) - 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/
| |