Re: [ANNOUNCE] udev 0.1 release

[Steven Dake <sdake@mvista.com>]

Arnd Bergmann wrote:

>Greg KH wrote:
>
>  
>
>>On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 01:29:57PM -0700, Steven Dake wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>It gets even worse, because performance of hotswap events on disk adds 
>>>is critical and spawning processes is incredibly slow compared to the 
>>>performance required by some telecom applications...
>>>      
>>>
>>It's critical that we quick name this disk within X milliseconds after
>>it has been added to the system?  What spec declares this?
>>    
>>
>
>While the problem might not really be the per-device latency, what should 
>be handled correctly is the following scenario:
>
>- Someone accidentally removes the cable that connects a few hundred 
>  (mounted) disks
>- The cable is replaced, but - oops - to the wrong socket
>- The person notices the error and now places the cable into the right
>  socket.
>
>At this time we have four concurrent hotplug events for every single
>disks that we want to be finished in order and we want every disk
>to end up with its original minor number in the end. If this is not
>possible, the system still needs to be in a sensible state after this.
>  
>
Yes, and in the rest of my email, I stated this would be solved by 
replacing /sbin/hotplug with a mechanism to communicate events to a user 
space daemon which would process requests in order as submitted by the 
kernel. (All except the same minor/major, which may or may not happen).  
If the kernel is evil and doesn't submit events in order, thats another 
problem to solve, but it should for disk events, atleast.

>        Arnd <><
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
>
>  
>