1 |
On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 07:56, C. Brewer wrote: |
2 |
> I tried out the 0.2 version of udev today, and I realize that its way rough |
3 |
> so early in the development, but I must say I was disappointed with it's |
4 |
> current implementation ( and the lousy attitude of the udev FAQ "if you don't |
5 |
> like it stick with devfs" didn't help). Currently I have some small concerns |
6 |
> about adopting this as a whole ( somewhere on down the line)- |
7 |
> |
8 |
|
9 |
Right. |
10 |
|
11 |
> 1)The present package consists of a tarball with just about every device node |
12 |
> you could make (excepting small things like sound, ppp, more than 4 ttyS*'s) |
13 |
> Is this going to be a standard, or will some form of intuitive /dev entries be |
14 |
> imp'd? IIRC, the tarball is about 1.4k device nodes, and I think I need 100 |
15 |
> on the outside. |
16 |
> |
17 |
|
18 |
Problem is that you need sysfs support, and currently only the scsi and |
19 |
major block/char devices supports it (no input, sound, etc). |
20 |
|
21 |
The tarball is only the initial stage, when better support is there (and |
22 |
I have obviously learned a lot more :), it will be dropped. |
23 |
|
24 |
> 2) Since this won't automatically create these nodes ( unless a hotplug event |
25 |
> occurs), or load the dependent modules, doesn't this seem like a step back to |
26 |
> the old system, but with a name-mapping steroided hotplug? |
27 |
> |
28 |
|
29 |
Depends, creating specific entries in /sys/ will also cause these, and |
30 |
when all drivers support sysfs .... |
31 |
|
32 |
> 3) Don't get me wrong..I'm not flaming the package,and I realize devfs is crap |
33 |
> as well..but the score is devfsd( crap but makes nodes and loads mods on the |
34 |
> fly) and udev (maps names and supposedly does stuff with hotplugging that |
35 |
> hotplug never amounted to.( and is dev'd by the hotplug peeps?ironic)). All |
36 |
|
37 |
Eventually udev will do this as well (for me example, if with new udev, |
38 |
and not having /sbin/udev in /proc/sys/kernel/hotplug, it auto loads |
39 |
usb-storage + co, and creates /dev/sdc* [after deleting them of |
40 |
course]). You basically just have to think back initial devfs stage =) |
41 |
|
42 |
> that aside, what is udev going to do for the desktop? I have devices I could |
43 |
> swap(USB) but with most comps coming with like 6 usb ports, I cant see more |
44 |
> than some pendrive swapping at user level. Yeah, I know theres peeps out |
45 |
> there with 80 pendrives and 8 hot-swappable hdd's, but is this the majority |
46 |
> of users? For the likely many of us who dont need to swap and have had the |
47 |
> same hardware on the same nodes that dont ever change..what does udev bring |
48 |
> to the table? |
49 |
> |
50 |
|
51 |
When the driver register, it will still create /sys/ entries, and thus |
52 |
the nodes you wish for (when it supports sysfs). |
53 |
|
54 |
> Forgive me if I've gone delusional.. I was just under the impression that udev |
55 |
> was going to do everything that devfsd does now _and_ add name mapping, and |
56 |
> apparently I was wrong. I'm just planning for the future since seeing the |
57 |
> udev changes going into our init system.. we got no choice about the devfs |
58 |
> and I feel it's going the same way for udev. I'm not trying to slight the |
59 |
> obviously hard work that was put into it, but what about choice? to devfs or |
60 |
> not to devfs? to udev or not to udev? Or is it merely choice with package |
61 |
> selection, and not with the overall package that is Gentoo? |
62 |
> |
63 |
|
64 |
If you want to do testing, and do not mind the slight issue, go udev - |
65 |
if not, go devfs for now. |
66 |
|
67 |
|
68 |
Thanks, |
69 |
|
70 |
-- |
71 |
|
72 |
Martin Schlemmer |
73 |
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer |
74 |
Cape Town, South Africa |