On 2004.03.24 09:52, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Mar 24, Miquel van Smoorenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Sounds like udev needs to run before everything else if it uses > > a ramfs as /dev .. can't you just say "if you want to use udev > > with a ram-based filesystem, run udev from initrd" ? I think > > that's what the general idea was, anyway .. > The general idea was to use initramfs, but I doubt it will be ready > before 2.7.x. > > > Either that or udev should run at S01udev. Hmm, space is getting > > crowded there at the lower sequence numbers. Should I move > > S02mountvirtfs to S04, perhaps, so you can put udev at S03 or S02 ? > No. The problem is that udev needs as well /proc and /sbin, this is why > I asked you to run mountvirtfs before it. > If breaking mountvirtfs in two scripts is hard then it will be probably > easier to simply unmount and remount /dev/pts from the udev init script.
That is indeed an option, and would work as a stop-gap measure. Another option is to move udev to run before mountvirtfs, and let it mount /proc itself. mountvirtfs can handle that just fine, it only mounts /proc if it's not mounted yet. Same for /sys, etc. So the options are: 1. udev runs after mountvirtfs, umounts /dev/pts, mounts a new /dev, remounts /dev/pts. If you use " umount -l" it won't even matter if /dev/pts is busy, and since there is only one instance of devpts anyway you'll remount the same instance. It will just work. 2. udev runs before mountvirtfs, mounts /proc itself (doesn't unmount it). In this case it'd be better to move mountvirtfs to S03 instead of S02 so that udev can run at S02. I don't really care one way or the other.. well, being lazy and all, I think I prefer (1) since I won't have to do anything then ;) Mike.-- Netu, v qba'g yvxr gur cynvagrkg :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
