Re: default udev rules

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 01:37:02PM -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 16:42 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > But surely that means cases where we need NAME= rules are now better
> > fixed by fixing the kernel to give it the right name in the first place?
> 
> The kernel name is most of the time useless - it's simply just a damn
> cookie. FWIW, my view is that any application depending on the kernel
> name is always almost broken (except for singleton devices
> like /dev/mapper/control etc.) except for when the user hasn't
> configured what device to use (e.g. use the first webcam, the first
> optical drive etc. etc.).
> 
> So this is why udev ships code (not user configurable settings!) in udev
> rules for persistent naming. Unfortunately we don't have persistent
> names for everything (and for some things it of course won't make
> sense). Send patches.
> 
> Also, I would like to propose that whenever someone adds a subsystem to
> the kernel they also need, for the subsystem to be merged, to send a
> patch to udev for persistent naming (in cases where it makes sense).
> Such a patch would some of the time need to include a user space tool
> for investigating the device (for the cases where persistent naming make
> sense) if device not in sysfs is needed (sometimes it doesn't make sense
> for the kernel to collect all data in sysfs)
> 
> I would really like to see the kernel adopt such a requirement for new
> subsystems. Greg?

No objection from me at all.  Care to write up a small documentation bit
for this that we can place in Documentation/ABI/README?

thanks,

greg k-h