From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 18:22:34 +0000 Subject: Re: [patch] udevd - cleanup and better timeout handling Message-Id: <20040126182234.GA2931@kroah.com> List-Id: References: <20040125200314.GA8376@vrfy.org> In-Reply-To: <20040125200314.GA8376@vrfy.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 09:03:14PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: > Here is the next revision for udevd: > o Small cleanups all over the place. > o Swich to the usual linked list format "list.h". > o Better timeout handling. > We store a timestamp in in every queued event, so we don't wait longer > than the timeout specified, if the hole in the list is not shrinking. > o ignore udevd target if klibc is used Nice, I've applied this. > The code is getting better, but we have still major flaws: > > 1. We are much too slow. > We want to exec the real udev in the background, but a 'remove' > is much much faster than a 'add', so we have a problem. > Question: is it neccessary to order events for different devpath's? > If no, we may wait_pid() for the exec only if we have another udev > working on the same devpath. But how will we keep track of that? It's probably easier just to wait for each one to finish, right? > 2. Which sequence is the first one? > The automatic exit of the daemon, if we have nothing to do, has the > disadvantage of not knowing if the first incoming seqnum is really > the first one. > So we need to delay the exec of the first exec a small amount of time, > to see if we get one with a smaller seqnum to exec before. > Or we simply never exit the daemon, and delay only the very first exec > after the start of the daemon. > Which way to go? I don't mind never exiting the daemon, and leaving a small startup delay at the beginning to make sure we have things in the proper order. That way the delay is only once. > 3. Switch away from ancient ipc to sockets? > We may want threads for this, but klibc doesn't support it. > Nevermind, the ipc stuff is also not supported :) > Any idea? Heh, I can easily add the ipc stuff to klibc. I'm not a experienced enough userspace programmer to discuss the merits of either option here. Anyone else? 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