From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott James Remnant Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:02:58 +0000 Subject: Re: Patches for device names Message-Id: <1218650578.6882.67.camel@quest> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-7OiLtVsnLFzYpr0DTvCb" List-Id: References: <1218648175.6882.63.camel@quest> In-Reply-To: <1218648175.6882.63.camel@quest> To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org --=-7OiLtVsnLFzYpr0DTvCb Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: >=20 > Wait, why do this at all? >=20 > To get rid of a few udev rules that group things into subdirectories? >=20 > 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? >=20 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? Scott --=20 Scott James Remnant scott@canonical.com --=-7OiLtVsnLFzYpr0DTvCb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBIoyHSSnQiFMl4yK4RAk+vAJ0X3iDjAYtHG+87x7O1ygGE/sh8dACfY6Z8 +hvGwwas/yGgQLHjixx27DU= =55yB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-7OiLtVsnLFzYpr0DTvCb--