On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 09:44:34PM -0500, Paul Fox wrote: > kay wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 17:50, David Zeuthen <david@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 11:06 -0500, Paul Fox wrote: > > >> i'm hoping someone can explain why my rule containing an > > >> "ignore_device" option for a power_supply device seems to be > > >> ignored. ??some sample output from udevadm test, and udevadm are > > >> available here: ??http://pastie.org/695548 > > > > > > Like last_rule (which we covered a few weeks ago), things like > > > ignore_device probably needs to go (although I haven't thought much > > > about it and I don't know why it was added - probably a broken driver I > > > guess). Trying to hide or ignore events at the udev level is just wrong > > > on a number of levels. > > > > Yeah, that's the same issue as last_rule. It's really wrong to show > > stuff in sysfs which gets enumerated, but to try to suppress such > > events at device creation time. > > can someone point me at a thread that explains why being able to > configure one's system to ignore a device is so plainly wrong? > i'm clearly missing something. Why is your kernel exporting something that you are trying to ignore? Just fix your kernel driver and it should be no problem, right? 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
