Dave Neuer wrote:
> On 8/15/05, Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>So, overall, I agree that we should not invent hacks to make up for
>>another software package's problems...
>
>
> but also wrote:
>
>
>>If the kernel could handle that aspect, it would make all programs more
>>stable.
>
>
> which seems a little contradictory.
What I was trying to say (and didn't say very well!) is that I agree
that "hacks" should not be created to mask other problems, but perhaps
there are ways to solve the problem in the kernel (or in user-space
programs like udev) that are not hacks and that generally make things
more elegant all around.
> However, Joe continued with:
>
>
>>It does not sound right to push the handling of the intermittent nature
>>to each user program.
>
>
> Indeed. Each user program should not care about it. An event/hotplug
> library should, and the user programs should use that. Like d-bus/HAL.
Right. Or, if it makes sense, I was proposing that a new kind of device
(or device mode) that makes a device ever-present could prevent needless
handling of plugs and unplugs in applications or X, if that's
appropriate. /dev/input/mice is such a device, acting as a catch-all
for mouse events (and as a byproduct, the specific mouse device chosen
arbitrarily does not matter to the app). If it's a hack (as Vojtech
says), maybe there is a way to get the same functionality in a less
hackish way. But Vojtech is right that the kernel should not read
config files or set "policy," so perhaps something like udev is the
right place for that kind of thing...
-Joe
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
