From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Neukum Subject: Re: Flames over -- Re: Which is simpler? Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 21:44:57 +0100 Message-ID: <200602192144.57748.oliver@neukum.org> References: <43F89F55.5070808@cfl.rr.com> <20060219120221.1d11cee0.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20060219120221.1d11cee0.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: alon.barlev@gmail.com, linux-pm@lists.osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, psusi@cfl.rr.com, torvalds@osdl.org, mrmacman_g4@mac.com List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Am Sonntag, 19. Februar 2006 21:02 schrieb Andrew Morton: > For a), the current kernel behaviour is what we want - make the thing > appear at a new place in the namespace and in the hierarchy. =A0Then > userspace can do whatever needs to be done to identify the device, and > apply some sort of policy decision to the result. How? If you have a running user space the connection to the open files is already severed, as any access in that time window must fail. For the rest we have udev. Oliver