Re: [ANNOUNCE] udev 016 release

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 01:03:33AM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 23:28, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 22:13, Greg KH wrote:
> > 
> > Except if I miss something major, udevsend and udevd still do not
> > work:
> > 
> 
> Skip that, it does work if SEQNUM is set :P
> 
> Anyhow, is it _really_ needed for SEQNUM to be set?  What about
> the attached patch?

Yes it is necessary, as that is what the kernel spits out.  It's also
the whole reason we need udevd :)

If you don't want to give a SEQNUM, just call udev directly.

> Then, order I have not really checked yet, but there are two things
> that bother me:
> 
> 1) latency is even higher than before (btw Greg, is there going to be
> more sysfs/whatever fixes to get udev even faster, or is this the
> limit?)

Care to measure the latency somehow?  The first event is a bit slow, but
everything after that is as fast as I ever remember it being.

> 2) events gets missing.  If you for example use udevsend in the
> initscript that populate /dev (/udev), the amount of nodes/links
> created is off with about 10-50 (once about 250) entries.

Hm, that's not good.  I'll go test that and see what's happening.

thanks,

greg k-h