On Thursday 24 August 2006 2:49 pm, David Brownell wrote: > On Thursday 24 August 2006 1:09 pm, Sam Bishop wrote: > > I also removed the reference to "scanning the filesystem" as a way to > > detect hotplug events. I can't think of any reason why someone would > > want to do it that way. > > The reference was about seeing what changed, so that e.g. you can > display a live representation of the USB device tree. Even with > sysfs, the "exactly what changed" information involves scanning; > reading /proc/bus/usb/devices is problematic.
Alright, I wasn't aware of that. Scanning the filesystem just seemed like more work for the same result. Do I need to modify my patch then, and add a warning perhaps? How problematic is it? If the scanning approach is the better way to go, I think that a description of it would belong in its own section. But unfortunately, and obviously, I wouldn't be the right one to write that. :) Thanks, Sam > - Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ [email protected] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
