From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brownell Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 18:22:08 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC] /sbin/hotplug multiplexor - take 2 Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 12:19:51PM -0700, David Brownell wrote: > >>I'd think better about this problem if I had a handful of >>examples showing why category-specific or event-specific >>dispatch wouldn't be preferable. > > > udev is such an example. I want it to run for every hotplug event. To > do that with the current scripts, I have to either modify the current > scripts to always call it (not a big deal, I have CVS access :) or add a > handler for every type of device, and every type of those devices. I'd go for the "always" call it (if /sys/$DEVPATH/dev exists and udev is enabled). That's category-specific ... but the category is determined by looking at system state, not the event type ($1). > devlabel is also another type of example. The author of that had to > persuade us to modify the scripts in order to get support for his > program. I don't want to be a gating function, with this simple > proposal, he could just dump the devlabel script into the /etc/hotplug.d > directory in the proper place and everything would just work. There's always some kind of gate! (And shouldn't "devlabel" just morph into the "namedev" thing that "udev" wants, so it'd go away soonish"?) I guess there's a different question I see lurking, and that's how "Hotplug NG" starts to develop -- how many things should change, and why. Multiplexing is only one thing to consider, likely more things should be on the table. Including how much to tie to 2.5 capabilities like the new modprobe aliasing, and how to get from here to there. > I've also been hearing from lots of other people (interestingly, not > publicly, I guess they like to stay hidden for some reason) that also > hook the hotplug scripts. They have usually been either recommending > that their users patch the current script, or just replace the current > ones all together (thereby loosing the module load functionality) in > order to support their devices. This proposal would also help them, and > their users. I like the direction of allowing easier extensibility. But I do worry about making it too easy to create chaos. Maybe I worry too much -- the bad mutations should just die out, rather than becoming a cancer that kills. - Dave > thanks, > > greg k-h > ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ 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