On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 23:08, David Zeuthen <david@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 13:52 -0400, Paul Fox wrote: >> given how often this comes up, i think it would be very useful >> for there to be a page fully describing the reasons that the udev >> project thinks the feature is a bad idea. when i asked in >> november for the reasons behind not being able to hide devices, i >> got somewhat vague reasons. (and i'm clearly still not >> convinced. :-) simply stating "suppressing events at the udev >> level is wrong" isn't terribly compelling. > > I'm sorry that you don't find this compelling but it came directly from > both myself and the udev maintainer (Kay Sievers) - you are free to > check the archives for better explanations. Or if you examine, in > detail, how uevents and libudev work, you will eventually understand why > ignore_device was a terrible idea to begin with [1]. Right, there is nothing we could "ignore" properly that way. "Hiding" devices should probably be done by just unbinding the driver. 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
