On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 09:59:28 -0700, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But long term, I wonder. Isn't "no kevents issued" an extremely > blunt tool, which could cause lots of damage? It might be better > to have selective filters, one per event family: core (add/remove), > online/offline, mount/unmount, etc. It all depends on your use case :) But yes, we could introduce some flags that selectively filter out some groups of uevents. > But in general it's worth thinking about. The comments on that > "suppress all kevents" patch didn't include any motivation at all. > Why do you want to prevent all kevents, rather than just a subset? Currently, some drivers (like firmware_class) return an error code in their uevent function in order to suppress uevents until they did some setup. It seemed cleaner to use uevent_suppress and filter until they were ready. For s390, we have the problem that we get a storm of uevents for devices which aren't useable after all; we can use uevent_suppress to make sure that userspace doesn't know anything about those devices until we're really sure we want to keep them. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
