On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer <grim...@gmx.de> wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 8. September 2011, 12:45:47 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer <grim...@gmx.de> > wrote: >> > Am Donnerstag, 8. September 2011, 16:58:22 schrieb Neil Bothwick: >> >> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 11:15:40 -0400, Michael Mol wrote: >> >> > Perhaps udev's problem is that it's too complex, as a result of >> >> > having >> >> > too large a problem scope. >> >> >> >> The problem, AIUI, is the udev can run any programs specified in the >> >> rules files, and they may not be available before /usr is mounted. >> > >> > Funny thing is, devfs was removed, because of "unfixable >> > race-conditions" >> > (among other things iirc). What else is this then? >> > An initramfs is not a proper fix for this design flaw, imo. >> >> Then design the correct solution and implement it. If it's technically >> sound, it will prevail. I think it's a rather complicated problem with >> a non trivial solution, but the code is there if you feel like give it >> a try. > > Where did I write, that I am in the position to write such a beast? > I only take the freedom to name this a design flaw in udev.
And I only take the freedom to tell you that if you don't like the design, you have the option of improved (or completely replace it) and implement such design. > It needs things from userspace, which are not yet available at the point it > requests them. An initramsfs is a workaround for this, not a proper fix. Again, it's a complex problem. What do you think is the proper fix? I don't the kernel/Gentoo/udev devs are making this as a workaround. I see it as a policy decision. Maybe I'm wrong, but I really trust the devs. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
