From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.173.237] helo=tim.rpsys.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QSAxQ-00037h-TV for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:41:17 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p52Gc7iG018126 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 17:38:07 +0100 Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 17751-02 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 17:38:03 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p52Gc2rG018118 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 17:38:03 +0100 From: Richard Purdie To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer In-Reply-To: References: <1306960665.3119.11.camel@lenovo.internal.reciva.com> Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 17:37:41 +0100 Message-ID: <1307032661.27470.581.camel@rex> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] busybox: enable mdev by default X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 16:41:17 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 20:40 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 20:37, Phil Blundell wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 20:09 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote: > >> -# CONFIG_MDEV is not set > >> +CONFIG_MDEV=y > > > > Per previous discussion, I am still uneasy about this change. I think > > we really need some sort of coherent policy for what exactly the default > > busybox configuration in oe-core is meant to be doing, and then (if > > necessary) a set of patches to make it match the policy. Just flipping > > random features on and off does not seem like a good way to proceed. > > OE-core has support to mdev as device handling mechanism as such this > ought to be enabled by default IMO. > > Personally it doesn't matter since I have already overriden it in my > internal layer. I'm afraid I'm with Phil on this. I don't like the idea of enabling something we don't actually use. This really needs to become some kind of configure option which would at the same time disable/replace udev so the patch in its currently form isn't acceptable. Cheers, Richard