From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kay Sievers Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:03:14 +0000 Subject: Re: Make an un-device? Message-Id: List-Id: References: <20100324124352.0978847e@zooty> In-Reply-To: <20100324124352.0978847e@zooty> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 23:08, David Zeuthen wrote: > On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 13:52 -0400, Paul Fox wrote: >> given how often this comes up, i think it would be very useful >> for there to be a page fully describing the reasons that the udev >> project thinks the feature is a bad idea.  when i asked in >> november for the reasons behind not being able to hide devices, i >> got somewhat vague reasons.  (and i'm clearly still not >> convinced. :-)  simply stating "suppressing events at the udev >> level is wrong" isn't terribly compelling. > > I'm sorry that you don't find this compelling but it came directly from > both myself and the udev maintainer (Kay Sievers) - you are free to > check the archives for better explanations. Or if you examine, in > detail, how uevents and libudev work, you will eventually understand why > ignore_device was a terrible idea to begin with [1]. Right, there is nothing we could "ignore" properly that way. "Hiding" devices should probably be done by just unbinding the driver. Kay