[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070403105253.743ef814@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 10:52:53 +0200
From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andres Salomon <dilinger@...ian.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.21-rc5-git 1/2] fix hotplug for legacy platform
drivers
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 09:59:28 -0700,
David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net> wrote:
> But long term, I wonder. Isn't "no kevents issued" an extremely
> blunt tool, which could cause lots of damage? It might be better
> to have selective filters, one per event family: core (add/remove),
> online/offline, mount/unmount, etc.
It all depends on your use case :) But yes, we could introduce some
flags that selectively filter out some groups of uevents.
> But in general it's worth thinking about. The comments on that
> "suppress all kevents" patch didn't include any motivation at all.
> Why do you want to prevent all kevents, rather than just a subset?
Currently, some drivers (like firmware_class) return an error code in
their uevent function in order to suppress uevents until they did some
setup. It seemed cleaner to use uevent_suppress and filter until they
were ready. For s390, we have the problem that we get a storm of
uevents for devices which aren't useable after all; we can use
uevent_suppress to make sure that userspace doesn't know anything about
those devices until we're really sure we want to keep them.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists