On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:01 AM, Nicolas Sebrecht <nsebre...@piing.fr> wrote: > The 05/01/12, Pandu Poluan wrote: > >> And mdev might be a 'toy' to you, but embedded Linux developers will >> vehemently disagree with you. >> >> And based on the responses in this thread, server guys will also >> disagree with you. > > On the embedded side, we need udev much more than you think to support > bluetooth, tablet and so. Android uses udev. This is even more true when > we know that users will expect to have any plugged-in devices at > whatever boot time or runing system be working out of the box. BTW, this > is not a major problem since embedded devices already often use initramfs. > > On servers, I wouldn't be surprised that hypervisor tools will expect > /dev/cdrom instead of /dev/sr0. > AFAIK, mdev doesn't provide persistent device names and changing a > ethernet card might result in a highly broken system where udev will let > all interfaces working but the changed one. Worse, I think mdev might > change of device names upon reboot so that all ethernet devices can be > mixed up in ways like eth0 -> eth1, eth1 -> eth3 and eth2 -> eth0.
FWIW, I had a /dev/cdrom symlink long before *devfs* even existed, let alone udev. Also, ethN numberings are generally stable until and unless you do some strange BIOS tweaking or hardware changes, and should be able to be stabilized in the event the instability comes from some racy module loading mechanism. udev's attempts at stabilizing network interfaces have made things worse more often than I've heard of it making them better. Hit any search engine for "eth0 missing 70-persistent-net.rules". (Apologies for anyone who sees this message in such a result; just delete /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules, and you should get eth0 back.) -- :wq
