| 1 |
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 01:05:57AM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 04:56:15AM +0300, Maxim Kammerer wrote |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > I don't know at what state udev was 3 or 4 years ago, but mdev can: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > 1. Populate /dev (now unnecessary due to devtmpfs). |
| 7 |
> > 2. Handle ownership, permissions and symlinks to /dev nodes once they |
| 8 |
> > appear, according to simple rules (can be probably done with inotify). |
| 9 |
> > 3. Act as /sbin/hotplug, typically doing something equivalent to this one-liner: |
| 10 |
> > [ "${ACTION}" = add -a -n "${MODALIAS}" ] && modprobe -qb "${MODALIAS}" |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> That's *EXACTLY* what I want and need. To borrow an old emacs joke, |
| 13 |
> udev is a mediocre OS that lacks a lightweight device manager. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Huh? How is udev not "lightweight"? What does it have in it that makes |
| 16 |
it "heavy"? I see lots of things in mdev that make it heavier and |
| 17 |
slower than udev :) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> > I don't think mdev can do anything else. Building any serious |
| 20 |
> > framework on top of mdev seems pointless to me, since it will probably |
| 21 |
> > end up as a small subset of udev core reimplemented with scripts. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> I *DON'T WANT* "a serious framework", I want a lightweight device |
| 24 |
> manager... period... end of story. Stick with the unix principle of one |
| 25 |
> app doing one thing well. mdev is enough for the vast majority of people. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I don't see how udev isn't a "do one thing really well" program and pass |
| 28 |
off to others, piping data to programs that can do other things to it if |
| 29 |
wanted/needed. Can you explain how it violates this Unix maxium? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
thanks, |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
greg k-h |
Archives