[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The new broken world of 2.6, ALSA, and hotplug.



* Matt Zimmerman translated into ASCII [Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 12:20:59PM -0800][<20040331202059.GN7200@alcor.net>]
[...]
> I think it is the right _default_ behaviour.  Seriously, how many users are
> likely to want the driver for their NIC, sound card, etc. loaded, as
> compared to those who are not?  There are certainly exceptions, but they are
> just that.
> 

Let me further clarify: I think this is the right default behavior as well.
Excepting this single issue, I find the hotplug PCI enumeration to be great.

That is why I didn't just turn it off and stop caring.

However, the simple fact that hotplug's enumeration occurs even in single
user mode is another example of the core issue. When (not if) the PCI
enumeration breaks a system, a user cannot recover without an separate boot
system of some sort.

It shouldn't be loading indiscriminately.

[...]
> That is the entirety of the code which deals with $cards_exist.  It skips
> loading modules (because this has already been done), and continues with
> everything else.  Seems correct to me.
> 

I stand corrected.

[...]
> It works fine for me, and is being actively maintained and improved.  What
> race conditions are you referring to?  I don't see any bugs in the BTS about
> this.  Maybe you're thinking of devfs+kmod?
> 

Hmm. I was thinking about kmod.

Though, a devfs upgrade to udev is another issue entirely...

[Start /usr/share/doc/udev/README.Debian]
Naming policy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The default configuration uses a traditional /dev layout.
If you prefer the devfs-style names you can change this by selecting
a new config file in /etc/udev/udev.conf and rebooting.
You probably want to merge udev-devfs.rules and udev-compat.rules.
===> This part of the packaging will be improved. <===
                                                                                
Do not forget that even if you use devfs-style names your kernel does
not know about them and you must still use traditional names e.g. as
the argumento of the root= boot parameter.
[End /usr/share/doc/udev/README.Debian]

Why not support devfs and traditional style naming simultaneously?

Other than, of coures, the precious few bytes on a tmpfs and the impurity of
the wrong naming scheme. ;-)

[...]
> > The fact is udev is not an upgrade path yet for 2.6 users. If it was, and it
> > is required, where are the Depends?
> 
> I didn't say that it was required; it is the correct solution to a number of
> problems.  It has been a fine upgrade path for me; I have been using it
> since the day I upgraded my desktop to 2.6.
> 

Then can we get a Suggests for us "newbie" users? (of which I try to play
the role of.)

Scott.

-- 
http://quadhome.com/            - Personal webpage
http://tranzoa.net/             - Corporate webpage

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: