Re: [PATCH] Remove broken by design and by implementation devtmpfs maintenance disaster

[Kay Sievers]

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 16:25, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:11:16 +0200
> Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 16:09, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > frankly, modprobe should call the settle.
>>
>> We call modprobe from udev, and will have fun with such a solution.
>>
>
> too bad you cut my next sentence which said that there needed to be a
> way to opt out of that.

Too bad, bad we don't have control over all the udev rules out there
doing that, which will dead-lock then. And too bad that when udev
calls modprobe we still don't solve the races. Too bad that calling
"settle" waits for all events and you can never know when loading a
module what to wait for and what not. It's just not a close to a
solution that is doing any good. What's the point of all these weird
workarounds you are proposing? I think it's properly solved already.

Thanks,
Kay
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/