/dev handler.
Unfortunally, if you want/need hotplugging in xorg today you don't
have any choices.
I wonder if it would be difficult to add devtmpfs support to mdev? As
I understand, mdev will no longer need do mknod, but will only need to
set permissions and create symlinks. Maybe also remove device
, but
Natanael will only need to set permissions and create symlinks. Maybe
Natanael also remove device nodes.
Yes, if we change the permissions / rename, then we afaik need to remove
the nodes ourselves.
What exactly is the problem with using mdev together with devtmpfs? (I
always use pure
need to remove
the nodes ourselves.
What exactly is the problem with using mdev together with devtmpfs? (I
always use pure devtmpfs on the embedded devices, but don't right away
see what the problem is).
Overlapping functionallity? I googled a bit and got the impression
that they don't work
I have got a new challenge with udev. Since version 176 devtmpfs is
*required* in kernel[1]. As I understand this will not work very well
with mdev, our primary /dev handler.
It should work with mdev.
However, you might have the same aesthetics issues as me with devtmpfs:
it looks like a
Natanael == Natanael Copa natanael.c...@gmail.com writes:
Hi,
What exactly is the problem with using mdev together with devtmpfs? (I
always use pure devtmpfs on the embedded devices, but don't right away
see what the problem is).
Natanael Overlapping functionallity? I googled a bit
Laurent == Laurent Bercot ska-dietl...@skarnet.org writes:
Hi,
Laurent Apart from the silly idea that init is sacred and can't be
Laurent replaced with a script, there is basically no good technical
Laurent reason to use devtmpfs;
Ehh, yes - For embedded (root only) systems where the
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Peter Korsgaard jac...@sunsite.dk wrote:
Natanael Maybe I was wrong.
We're atleast doing devtmpfs together with mdev in Buildroot, but as I
mentioned it isn't a configuration that I use personally.
Super! I will play around with it.
Thanks!
--
Natanael Copa
On 02/02/2012 02:59 PM, Natanael Copa wrote:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Peter Korsgaardjac...@sunsite.dk wrote:
Natanael Maybe I was wrong.
We're atleast doing devtmpfs together with mdev in Buildroot, but as I
mentioned it isn't a configuration that I use personally.
Super! I
On Thursday 10 December 2009 08:59, Rob Landley wrote:
Anybody want to speculate how devtmpfs impacts mdev?
http://lwn.net/Articles/330985/
As far as I can tell, just setting the permissions and ownership isn't enough
for us to tell the kernel not to zap the sucker when it goes away
Anybody want to speculate how devtmpfs impacts mdev?
http://lwn.net/Articles/330985/
As far as I can tell, just setting the permissions and ownership isn't enough
for us to tell the kernel not to zap the sucker when it goes away. We'd still
benefit from that happening.
We only want
10 matches
Mail list logo
