On Friday 07 November 2014 at 16:45:02, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Fri, 07.11.14 17:45, Ivan Shapovalov ([email protected]) wrote: > > > On Thursday 06 November 2014 at 11:02:44, David Herrmann wrote: > > > Hi Ray > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 10:40 AM, David Herrmann <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Ray Strode <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> So if you have no idea how to make that rule be generated only if > > > >>> ENABLE_VCONSOLE is set by configure, then we probably should take my > > > >>> patch below. > > > >> Your patch seems far better than the options above, but I think it > > > >> needs a dracut patch to make sure the new rules file gets in the > > > >> initrd too, or it won't work. > > > > > > > > I will push the patch to systemd and let Harald know. I'm not really > > > > familiar with dracut.. > > > > > > Pushed. > > > > Isn't it ugly to re-runn systemd-vconsole-setup straight from an udev rule? > > I mean, udev has a tendency to kill long-running RUN processes, and I've > > seen > > systemd-vconsole-setup.service to take >5 seconds on some systems... > > Also, these additional systemd-vconsole-setup instances aren't supervised by > > systemd... > > Is systemd-vconsole-setup really long-running? Why would it need that > long? > > To me it appears to be quite OK to be run inside a udev rule.
Well, maybe it is OK to be run from an udev rule, but it is still an inconsistency between running that binary on boot (via a unit) and running the same binary when a framebuffer console is added (directly)... -- Ivan Shapovalov / intelfx /
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
