Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

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