From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 16:14:45 +0000
Subject: Re: udevd [was: Re: [RFC/PATCH] input_id: add touchpad quirks
Message-Id: <20100517161445.GC28960@kroah.com>
List-Id: <linux-hotplug.vger.kernel.org>
References: <20100513134742.GB1768@piware.de>
In-Reply-To: <20100513134742.GB1768@piware.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 12:10:06PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-05-16 at 09:04 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 12:22:47PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > I consider myself an active member of udev upstream, and I think we've
> > > taken a wrong turn with the design and implementation.
> > 
> > What specifically do you mean by this?
> > 
> > Is the current libudev not a good design for your needs?  What should it
> > be instead?
> > 
> Actually, quite the opposite!  I think that libudev is a great design.
> 
> I think that the wrong turn is that we rely on a massive "cold plug"
> phase during boot, and we rely on probing every single piece of hardware
> during that phase or on later insertion - whether or not anything on the
> system actually cares about the result.

But how would we "know" if we care about a device until we actually
figure out what the device is, and load the driver for it?

This cold-plug phase doesn't seem to take a very large amount of time
these days at all, so I don't see the real savings that would be
possible here.

Or am I missing something?

thanks,

greg k-h