On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 01:37:02PM -0400, David Zeuthen wrote: > On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 16:42 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > But surely that means cases where we need NAME= rules are now better > > fixed by fixing the kernel to give it the right name in the first place? > > The kernel name is most of the time useless - it's simply just a damn > cookie. FWIW, my view is that any application depending on the kernel > name is always almost broken (except for singleton devices > like /dev/mapper/control etc.) except for when the user hasn't > configured what device to use (e.g. use the first webcam, the first > optical drive etc. etc.). > > So this is why udev ships code (not user configurable settings!) in udev > rules for persistent naming. Unfortunately we don't have persistent > names for everything (and for some things it of course won't make > sense). Send patches. > > Also, I would like to propose that whenever someone adds a subsystem to > the kernel they also need, for the subsystem to be merged, to send a > patch to udev for persistent naming (in cases where it makes sense). > Such a patch would some of the time need to include a user space tool > for investigating the device (for the cases where persistent naming make > sense) if device not in sysfs is needed (sometimes it doesn't make sense > for the kernel to collect all data in sysfs) > > I would really like to see the kernel adopt such a requirement for new > subsystems. Greg? No objection from me at all. Care to write up a small documentation bit for this that we can place in Documentation/ABI/README? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hotplug" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
