From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Le Bihan Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 01:14:41 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 10/10] package/mdevd: bump version to 0.1.1.0 In-Reply-To: <87wodp1npl.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> References: <20190929171017.26831-1-eric.le.bihan.dev@free.fr> <20190929171017.26831-11-eric.le.bihan.dev@free.fr> <20190930225757.44578f50@windsurf.home> <87wodp1npl.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <20190930231441.GB11114@itchy> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi! On 2019-09-30 23:25, Peter Korsgaard wrote: > >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni writes: > > > On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 19:10:17 +0200 > > Eric Le Bihan wrote: > > >> This new package provides mdevd, a small daemon managing kernel hotplug > >> events similar to udevd. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Eric Le Bihan > > > We have a choice between static /dev, devtmpfs, devtmpfs + Busybox > > mdev, devtmpfs + eudev, should we add a choice of devtmpfs + mdevd ? > > > What happens if we have both Busybox mdev *and* mdevd in the same > > configuration ? > > What is the advantage of mdevd over mdev now that we use the daemon mode > of mdev? I did not know about the daemon mode of mdev, but mdevd was created to overcome the mdev forking issue [1] and predates the daemon option [2]. So in the end, they provide the same features, with mdevd also complying with s6 notification mechanism [3], making it more tightly coupled with this init system. Given that there is no option in menuconfig to use a s6-based init system [4], I see no reason to add a "devtmpfs+mdevd" option ATM. Users should select the mdevd package when implementing their own custom s6-based init. [1] https://skarnet.org/software/mdevd/mdevd.html [2] https://git.skarnet.org/cgi-bin/cgit.cgi/mdevd/tag/?h=v0.0.1.0 [3] https://skarnet.org/software/s6/notifywhenup.html [4] http://buildroot-busybox.2317881.n4.nabble.com/RFC-0-3-init-Add-s6-as-init-system-tp213980p216232.html Regards, -- ELB