Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@×××.de>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5 - failure :-(
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:18:33
Message-Id: 20120314151620.GB24395@acm.acm
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5 - failure :-( by "Canek Peláez Valdés"
1 Hello, Canek
2
3 On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 06:07:32PM -0600, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
4 > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Alan Mackenzie <acm@×××.de> wrote:
5
6 > > The new hardware will "just work" if there are the correct drivers
7 > >built in.  That's as true of udev as it is of mdev as it is of the old
8 > >static /dev with mknod.
9
10 > No, it is not. You are letting out the sine qua non of the matter: the
11 > device has to be built, *and the /dev file should exists*. I hope you
12 > are not suggesting that we put *ALL* the possible files under /dev,
13 > because that was the idea before devfs, and it doesn't work *IN
14 > GENERAL*.
15
16 Previously you made appropriate /dev entries with mknod, giving the
17 device major and minor numbers as parameters. This appeared to work in
18 general - I'm not aware of any device it didn't work for.
19
20 > So, you need something to handle device files on /dev, so you don't
21 > need every possible device file for every possible piece of hardware.
22 > But then you want to handle the same device with the same device name,
23 > so you need some kind of database. Then for the majority of users,
24 > they want to see *something* happen when they connect aa piece of
25 > hardware to their computers.
26
27 That happened under the old static /dev system. What was that /dev
28 system, if not a database matching /dev names to device numbers? I'm not
29 sure what you mean by "same device" and "same device name".
30
31 > So you need to handle the events associated with the connections (or
32 > discovery, for things like Bluetooth) of the devices, and since udev is
33 > already handling the database and the detection of
34 > connections/discovery, I agree with the decision of leting udev to
35 > execute programs when something gets connected. You could get that
36 > function in another program, but you are only moving the problem, *and
37 > it can also happen very early at boot time*, so lets udev handle it all
38 > the time.
39
40 Early in boot time, you only need things like disk drives, graphic cards
41 and keyboards. Anything else can be postponed till late boot time.
42
43 > I hope you see where I'm going. As I said before, mdev could (in
44 > theory) do the same that udev does. But then it will be as complicated
45 > as udev, *because it is a complicated problem* in general. And I again
46 > use my fuel injection analogy: it is not *necessary*. It is just very
47 > damn convenient.
48
49 It may be a complicated problem in general, but many people do not need
50 that generality. I suspect the vast majority don't need it. Neither the
51 typical desktop, the typical server, nor typical embedded devices like
52 routers.
53
54 > I have a really time understanding why you don't see the complexity on
55 > the problem. I explained above: it is a complicated problem (when
56 > dealing with the general case), and therefore the (general) solution is
57 > bound to be also complicated.
58
59 I've had a hard time understanding, because up till now, nobody's
60 described the problem in detail - there's only been hand-waving.
61
62 > You want it simple? Tha'ts fine, it is possible. It's just that it
63 > will not solve the general problem, just a very specific subset of it.
64
65 That subset used by the vast majority of Linux users. And yes, I do want
66 it simple, because elegant simplicity is the best way, IMAO. You, on the
67 other hand, seem to love complicated solutions because they are "the way
68 forward". We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
69
70 > Just as mdev is doing; Walt just posted an email explaining that if
71 > you use GNOME, KDE, XFCE, or LVM2, mdev is not for you.
72
73 Walter is, I believe, mistaken here. I can mount and use my LVM2
74 partitions. Gnome looks like it comes up OK, but that could be moot,
75 since right now I haven't got keyboard/mouse drivers under the X server.
76
77 > I will not be surprised if in the future the list of programs "not for
78 > mdev" only grows.
79
80 There's a difference between "needed by portage" and "doesn't work under
81 mdev". As I say, it will all be moot if the evdev driver won't work
82 under mdev.
83
84 > Regards.
85 > --
86 > Canek Peláez Valdés
87 > Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
88 > Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
89
90 --
91 Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Replies