| 1 |
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 15:25 -0700, Greg KH wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 07:49:34PM +0200, Michiel de Bruijne wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thursday 07 July 2005 00:46, Greg KH wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Ok, now that devfs is removed from the 2.6 kernel tree[1], I think it's |
| 5 |
> > > time to start to revisit some of the /dev naming rules that we currently |
| 6 |
> > > are living with[2]. |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > To start with, the 061 version of udev offers a big memory savings if |
| 9 |
> > > you use the "default" kernel name of a device[3]. If you do that, it does |
| 10 |
> > > not create a file in its database in /dev/.udevdb/ |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Are there any ebuilds in the tree that are not sysfs/udev-aware? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Not that I am aware of. Anyone else know of any? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Neither. Or rather, I do not know about anything that should not work |
| 18 |
with LSB /dev ... |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> > I.o.w. is it still necessary to have RC_DEVICE_TARBALL="yes" as a |
| 21 |
> > default or can we move to a pure udev system and change the default to |
| 22 |
> > "no". |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I've been running my boxes successfully with "no" since the option |
| 25 |
> showed up just fine :) |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I think people is under a misconception about this option and ... you |
| 29 |
really only need to enable this for a driver that is not sysfs aware |
| 30 |
(nvidia comes to mind - any others?), or if you have some custom nodes |
| 31 |
in /dev that you cannot do via udev ... And I am pretty sure (correct |
| 32 |
me if I am wrong) that all (or most?) in-kernel drivers are sysfs aware, |
| 33 |
and only a handful outside are not. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Martin Schlemmer |
| 38 |
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer |
| 39 |
Cape Town, South Africa |
Archives