On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 08:19:30PM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> 'just plug' is the watchword. New device model just needs a reboot - in
> some circumstances device numbering is random without hardware changes and
> without software changes.
So it exposes a bug more frequently than before.
On Monday 02 January 2006 14.48, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:29:16PM +, Darren Salt wrote:
> > I'd call that broken, just as I consider udev (076) to be broken given
> > that it breaks expectations wrt device naming. (Here, it swapped the
> > names of the DVD drives (driver
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:29:16PM +, Darren Salt wrote:
> I'd call that broken, just as I consider udev (076) to be broken given that
> it breaks expectations wrt device naming. (Here, it swapped the names of the
> DVD drives (drivers are built-in) and sound devices (drivers are modular).)
B
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 06:29, Darren Salt wrote:
> I demand that Alexander E. Patrakov may or may not have written...
>
> > Kay Sievers wrote:
> >> There is also the plan to do parallel device probing inside the kernel
> >> some day, that will make the situation of relying on kernel names even
> >> mo
I demand that Alexander E. Patrakov may or may not have written...
> Kay Sievers wrote:
>> There is also the plan to do parallel device probing inside the kernel
>> some day, that will make the situation of relying on kernel names even
>> more fragile.
> Right, this means that the way of passing
Kay Sievers wrote:
There is also the plan to do parallel device probing inside the kernel
some day, that will make the situation of relying on kernel names even
more fragile.
Right, this means that the way of passing "root=/dev/hdc2" will no
longer work because /dev/hdc will sometimes become
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 09:52:42AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Dec 18, Darren Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > An alternative appears to be to process events in series... or maybe
> > delaying
> This was the precedent approach, and it's much slower (also, it cannot
> be implemented anymo
On Dec 18, Darren Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An alternative appears to be to process events in series... or maybe delaying
This was the precedent approach, and it's much slower (also, it cannot
be implemented anymore with just udevd).
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital si
[CC'ing hotplug-devel]
I demand that Marco d'Itri may or may not have written...
> On Dec 17, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It is currently very likely that systems with two network interfaces will
>> end up with both switched on the installed system after the reboot. This
>> is
9 matches
Mail list logo
