From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266186AbUBCXPq (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:15:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266187AbUBCXPq (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:15:46 -0500 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([65.200.24.183]:57528 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266186AbUBCXPn (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:15:43 -0500 Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 15:13:41 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Martin Schlemmer Cc: linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Linux Kernel Mailing Lists Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] udev 016 release Message-ID: <20040203231341.GA22058@kroah.com> References: <20040203201359.GB19476@kroah.com> <1075843712.7473.60.camel@nosferatu.lan> <1075849413.11322.6.camel@nosferatu.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1075849413.11322.6.camel@nosferatu.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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