16.10.2014 01:41, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
True. module name should be enough. In this case to debug the issue user needs:
- disable failing udev rule (or blacklist module?)
- reboot, it will let the user get into shell
- modprobe the failing module
- use sysrq-trigger to get more
Hi
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:54 PM, Anatol Pomozov
> wrote:
>> 1) Why not to make the timeout configurable through config file? There
>> is already udev.conf you can put config option there. Thus people with
>> modprobe issues can easily
Hi
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:54 PM, Anatol Pomozov
anatol.pomo...@gmail.com wrote:
1) Why not to make the timeout configurable through config file? There
is already udev.conf you can put config option there. Thus people with
16.10.2014 01:41, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
True. module name should be enough. In this case to debug the issue user needs:
- disable failing udev rule (or blacklist module?)
- reboot, it will let the user get into shell
- modprobe the failing module
- use sysrq-trigger to get more
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:54 PM, Anatol Pomozov
wrote:
> 1) Why not to make the timeout configurable through config file? There
> is already udev.conf you can put config option there. Thus people with
> modprobe issues can easily "fix" the problem. And then decrease
> default timeout back to 30
Hi
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
How about simply introducing a new flag to
Hi
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
mcg...@do-not-panic.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez
mcg...@do-not-panic.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Tom Gundersen
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:54 PM, Anatol Pomozov
anatol.pomo...@gmail.com wrote:
1) Why not to make the timeout configurable through config file? There
is already udev.conf you can put config option there. Thus people with
modprobe issues can easily fix the problem. And then decrease
default
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>>> How about simply introducing a new flag to finit_module() to indicate
>>> that the caller does not care about
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez
mcg...@do-not-panic.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
How about simply introducing a new flag to finit_module() to indicate
that
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>> How about simply introducing a new flag to finit_module() to indicate
>> that the caller does not care about asynchronicity. We could then pass
>> this from udev, but existing
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
> wrote:
More than two years
have gone by on growing design and assumptions on top of that original
commit. I'm not sure if *systemd folks* yet believe its was a design
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
wrote:
>>> More than two years
>>> have gone by on growing design and assumptions on top of that original
>>> commit. I'm not sure if *systemd folks* yet believe its was a design
>>> regression?
>>
>> I don't think so. udev should not allow its
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
mcg...@do-not-panic.com wrote:
More than two years
have gone by on growing design and assumptions on top of that original
commit. I'm not sure if *systemd folks* yet believe its was a design
regression?
I don't think so. udev should not
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
mcg...@do-not-panic.com wrote:
More than two years
have gone by on growing design and assumptions on top of that original
commit. I'm not sure if *systemd folks* yet believe
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez
mcg...@do-not-panic.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
How about simply introducing a new flag to finit_module() to indicate
that the caller does not care about asynchronicity. We could then pass
11.09.2014 03:10, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
Tom, thanks for reviewing this! My reply below!
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:35 PM, James Bottomley
wrote:
On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 12:16
Tom, thanks for reviewing this! My reply below!
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:35 PM, James Bottomley
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 12:16 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 12:07 +0200, Ceriel Jacobs wrote:
> Tom Gundersen schreef op 10-09-14 om 08:46:
> >> >Indeed. What I proposed with a multiplier for the timeout for the
> >> >different types of built in commands was deemed complex but saw no
> >> >alternatives proposed despite my interest to
Tom Gundersen schreef op 10-09-14 om 08:46:
>Indeed. What I proposed with a multiplier for the timeout for the
>different types of built in commands was deemed complex but saw no
>alternatives proposed despite my interest to work on one and
>clarifications noted that this was a design
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:35 PM, James Bottomley
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 12:16 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 10:38 PM, James Bottomley
>>> wrote:
>>> > If we want to sort out some sync/async
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
mcg...@do-not-panic.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:35 PM, James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote:
On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 12:16 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 10:38 PM, James Bottomley
Tom Gundersen schreef op 10-09-14 om 08:46:
Indeed. What I proposed with a multiplier for the timeout for the
different types of built in commands was deemed complex but saw no
alternatives proposed despite my interest to work on one and
clarifications noted that this was a design regression.
On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 12:07 +0200, Ceriel Jacobs wrote:
Tom Gundersen schreef op 10-09-14 om 08:46:
Indeed. What I proposed with a multiplier for the timeout for the
different types of built in commands was deemed complex but saw no
alternatives proposed despite my interest to work on one
Tom, thanks for reviewing this! My reply below!
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
mcg...@do-not-panic.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:35 PM, James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote:
11.09.2014 03:10, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
Tom, thanks for reviewing this! My reply below!
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
mcg...@do-not-panic.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:35 PM, James Bottomley
26 matches
Mail list logo
