On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 15:25 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 07:49:34PM +0200, Michiel de Bruijne wrote: > > On Thursday 07 July 2005 00:46, Greg KH wrote: > > > Ok, now that devfs is removed from the 2.6 kernel tree[1], I think it's > > > time to start to revisit some of the /dev naming rules that we currently > > > are living with[2]. > > > > > > To start with, the 061 version of udev offers a big memory savings if > > > you use the "default" kernel name of a device[3]. If you do that, it does > > > not create a file in its database in /dev/.udevdb/ > > > > Are there any ebuilds in the tree that are not sysfs/udev-aware? > > Not that I am aware of. Anyone else know of any? >
Neither. Or rather, I do not know about anything that should not work with LSB /dev ... > > I.o.w. is it still necessary to have RC_DEVICE_TARBALL="yes" as a > > default or can we move to a pure udev system and change the default to > > "no". > > I've been running my boxes successfully with "no" since the option > showed up just fine :) > I think people is under a misconception about this option and ... you really only need to enable this for a driver that is not sysfs aware (nvidia comes to mind - any others?), or if you have some custom nodes in /dev that you cannot do via udev ... And I am pretty sure (correct me if I am wrong) that all (or most?) in-kernel drivers are sysfs aware, and only a handful outside are not. -- Martin Schlemmer Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer Cape Town, South Africa
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
