Re: Patches for device names

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 07:02:58PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 10:50 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 06:22:55PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > Before I get patching, I wanted to get a consensus about what the best
> > > patches would be, since there's a few options:
> > 
> > Wait, why do this at all?
> > 
> > To get rid of a few udev rules that group things into subdirectories?
> > 
> > Is that really a sane/wise/useful thing to do?  Is your goal to get rid
> > of _all_ udev rules by doing this?  If not, then why worry about it?
> > 
> To get rid of all udev rules that set a NAME based only on information
> received from the kernel.
> 
> Why waste cycles and resources constructing a static name just because
> the kernel's static name doesn't match the standard?

Because of history here?  Can't you live with input devices having a few
rules in udev?  Is it really that hard to maintain?  :)

Becides input, what other subsystem do you see such kernel changes being
needed for?

thanks,

greg k-h