From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261867AbTDLAKP (for ); Fri, 11 Apr 2003 20:10:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262219AbTDLAKP (for ); Fri, 11 Apr 2003 20:10:15 -0400 Received: from uucp.cistron.nl ([62.216.30.38]:43019 "EHLO ncc1701.cistron.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261867AbTDLAKN (for ); Fri, 11 Apr 2003 20:10:13 -0400 From: miquels@cistron-office.nl (Miquel van Smoorenburg) Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] udev 0.1 release Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 00:21:53 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Cistron Group Message-ID: References: <20030411172011.GA1821@kroah.com> <20030411190717.GH1821@kroah.com> <20030412000829.GL4539@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Trace: ncc1701.cistron.net 1050106913 7548 62.216.29.200 (12 Apr 2003 00:21:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@cistron.nl X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) Originator: miquels@cistron-office.nl (Miquel van Smoorenburg) To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article <20030412000829.GL4539@kroah.com>, Greg KH wrote: >On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 11:39:07PM +0000, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: >> Why not serialize /sbin/hotplug at the kernel level. Queue hotplug >> events and only allow one /sbin/hotplug to run at the same time. > >We don't want the kernel to stop based on a user program. It would not stop if you queued the events. What is the difference between queueing events to be read from a pipe or socket or queueing them for a kernel thread that empties the queue by executing /sbin/hotplug for each entry in the queue. The pipe/socket solution is probably better anyway, I was just wondering why /sbin/hotplug wasn't serialized from the start. Mike.