From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
To: Martin Schlemmer <azarah@nosferatu.za.org>
Cc: linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
Linux Kernel Mailing Lists <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] udev 016 release
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:13:41 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040203231341.GA22058@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1075849413.11322.6.camel@nosferatu.lan>
On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 01:03:33AM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 23:28, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 22:13, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > Except if I miss something major, udevsend and udevd still do not
> > work:
> >
>
> Skip that, it does work if SEQNUM is set :P
>
> Anyhow, is it _really_ needed for SEQNUM to be set? What about
> the attached patch?
Yes it is necessary, as that is what the kernel spits out. It's also
the whole reason we need udevd :)
If you don't want to give a SEQNUM, just call udev directly.
> Then, order I have not really checked yet, but there are two things
> that bother me:
>
> 1) latency is even higher than before (btw Greg, is there going to be
> more sysfs/whatever fixes to get udev even faster, or is this the
> limit?)
Care to measure the latency somehow? The first event is a bit slow, but
everything after that is as fast as I ever remember it being.
> 2) events gets missing. If you for example use udevsend in the
> initscript that populate /dev (/udev), the amount of nodes/links
> created is off with about 10-50 (once about 250) entries.
Hm, that's not good. I'll go test that and see what's happening.
thanks,
greg k-h
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
_______________________________________________
Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net
Linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
To: Martin Schlemmer <azarah@nosferatu.za.org>
Cc: linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
Linux Kernel Mailing Lists <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] udev 016 release
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 15:13:41 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040203231341.GA22058@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1075849413.11322.6.camel@nosferatu.lan>
On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 01:03:33AM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 23:28, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 22:13, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > Except if I miss something major, udevsend and udevd still do not
> > work:
> >
>
> Skip that, it does work if SEQNUM is set :P
>
> Anyhow, is it _really_ needed for SEQNUM to be set? What about
> the attached patch?
Yes it is necessary, as that is what the kernel spits out. It's also
the whole reason we need udevd :)
If you don't want to give a SEQNUM, just call udev directly.
> Then, order I have not really checked yet, but there are two things
> that bother me:
>
> 1) latency is even higher than before (btw Greg, is there going to be
> more sysfs/whatever fixes to get udev even faster, or is this the
> limit?)
Care to measure the latency somehow? The first event is a bit slow, but
everything after that is as fast as I ever remember it being.
> 2) events gets missing. If you for example use udevsend in the
> initscript that populate /dev (/udev), the amount of nodes/links
> created is off with about 10-50 (once about 250) entries.
Hm, that's not good. I'll go test that and see what's happening.
thanks,
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-03 23:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-03 20:13 [ANNOUNCE] udev 016 release Greg KH
2004-02-03 20:13 ` Greg KH
2004-02-03 20:49 ` Martin Schlemmer
2004-02-03 23:14 ` Greg KH
2004-02-03 23:14 ` Greg KH
2004-02-03 21:28 ` Martin Schlemmer
2004-02-03 23:03 ` Martin Schlemmer
2004-02-03 23:13 ` Greg KH [this message]
2004-02-03 23:13 ` Greg KH
2004-02-04 0:01 ` Kay Sievers
2004-02-04 0:01 ` Kay Sievers
2004-02-04 4:25 ` Martin Schlemmer
2004-02-08 11:27 ` Martin Schlemmer
2004-02-08 13:01 ` Martin Schlemmer
2004-02-03 21:30 ` Marco d'Itri
2004-02-03 21:43 ` Martin Schlemmer
2004-02-11 22:13 ` Greg KH
2004-02-11 22:13 ` Greg KH
2004-02-11 22:27 ` Martin Schlemmer
2004-02-12 1:19 ` Greg KH
2004-02-12 1:19 ` Greg KH
2004-02-03 22:23 ` Eric Sandall
2004-02-03 22:46 ` Greg KH
2004-02-03 23:33 ` Eric Sandall
2004-02-03 23:53 ` Greg KH
2004-02-04 0:35 ` Eric Sandall
2004-02-04 22:31 ` Greg KH
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040203231341.GA22058@kroah.com \
--to=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=azarah@nosferatu.za.org \
--cc=linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.