On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 15:48, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 03:34:53PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: > >> Single-subscriber event interfaces are usually a no-go for generic >> infrastructure like this. We still have the unmodified HAL running >> until it is dead, and this works only because there are no such >> awkward interfaces. In a few years we will probably have diskfoo >> replacing dk-disks, and then ... :) > > If you've got any ideas for what a multi-subscriber interface would look > like, I'm happy look at it. Yeah, it would not be as simple as your patch. It probably involves a way to get a file descriptor per listener, to let the kernel know if anybody is interested, and to auto-cleanup when the listener dies, and to have per instance timers. > I don't think there's an especially > compelling use-case for one right now so I'm not enthusiastic about the > additional complexity that'd be required, Right, but we've been there, and it's a pain, if you can not subscribe to an interface because something else is already using it/expecting it is the only user ever. So there needs to be a good reason for adding something like this as a new interface, which will very likely hit us back some day. > but as long as there's basic > agreement that it's not practical to do this in userspace then we're at > least on the same page. I'm all for executing the policy inside the kernel and let userspace only enable/configure it. It think there is not much to disagr4ee about such an approach. Thanks, Kay -- 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
