Re: Does anything require /proc/bus/usb?
2009/7/17 Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com: Thomas Janssen on 07/17/2009 10:56 AM wrote: Patch would be welcome. Would make my life easier in #fedora helping people with that problem. The patch should have been attached to the original post. Did you see it? Ah, overlooked it, sorry. -- LG Thomas Dubium sapientiae initium -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Does anything require /proc/bus/usb?
Thomas Janssen on 07/17/2009 10:56 AM wrote: Patch would be welcome. Would make my life easier in #fedora helping people with that problem. The patch should have been attached to the original post. Did you see it? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Does anything require /proc/bus/usb?
On 07/17/2009 09:12 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: If not, should it be phased out? I'm referencing a use case with VirtualBox that looks for /proc/bus/usb by default and will use that instead of libusb for USB device access. This has caused issues for people wishing to use VirtualBox on Fedora in that they cannot use USB devices without a little tinkering. They either have to remove the /proc/bus/usb mount from rc.sysinit or adjust their fstab to allow other users access. I'll even go as far as providing a patch! *gasp* Most of you probably don't care about VirtualBox and would rather us use libvirt, but some folks use different software. Libvirt of course is a library. Even VirtualBox could be using it. Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Does anything require /proc/bus/usb?
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:42:56AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: If not, should it be phased out? I'm referencing a use case with VirtualBox that looks for /proc/bus/usb by default and will use that instead of libusb for USB device access. This has caused issues for people wishing to use VirtualBox on Fedora in that they cannot use USB devices without a little tinkering. They either have to remove the /proc/bus/usb mount from rc.sysinit or adjust their fstab to allow other users access. Why not do a patch for VirtualBox to make it look in the right place first ? We've just done that for QEMU too, changing its search order to be /sys/bus/usb, /dev/bus/usb and only then /proc/bus/usb. Removing the whole /proc/bus/usb mount to solve one application's problem does not seem ideal. I'll even go as far as providing a patch! *gasp* Most of you probably don't care about VirtualBox and would rather us use libvirt, but some folks use different software. FYI the distinction VirtualBox vs libvirt isn't correct. libvirt is an API for any virtualization technology, and has drivers for Xen, KVM, QEMU, VirtualBox and more. Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Does anything require /proc/bus/usb?
Daniel P. Berrange on 07/17/2009 11:10 AM wrote: Why not do a patch for VirtualBox to make it look in the right place first ? We've just done that for QEMU too, changing its search order to be /sys/bus/usb, /dev/bus/usb and only then /proc/bus/usb. Removing the whole /proc/bus/usb mount to solve one application's problem does not seem ideal. The VirtualBox developers state: /proc/bus/usb is deprecated, and most people have already got rid of it. If VBox finds it mounted, it uses legacy code to handle USB. We do this to avoid breaking existing working setups. Otherwise we use newer, alternative code. FYI the distinction VirtualBox vs libvirt isn't correct. libvirt is an API for any virtualization technology, and has drivers for Xen, KVM, QEMU, VirtualBox and more. My analogy was poor, yes, as most Internet comments are, but my point was being VB vs what libvirt provides, not what libvirt is (a library). -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Does anything require /proc/bus/usb?
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 09:16:12AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 17:10 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:42:56AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: If not, should it be phased out? I'm referencing a use case with VirtualBox that looks for /proc/bus/usb by default and will use that instead of libusb for USB device access. This has caused issues for people wishing to use VirtualBox on Fedora in that they cannot use USB devices without a little tinkering. They either have to remove the /proc/bus/usb mount from rc.sysinit or adjust their fstab to allow other users access. Why not do a patch for VirtualBox to make it look in the right place first ? Because we don't package VirtualBox, because it requires not-in-tree kernel modules. I know that, but that doesn't prevent motivated people sending a patch to rpmfusion, or virtualbox upstream to solve this problem. Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Does anything require /proc/bus/usb?
Daniel P. Berrange on 07/17/2009 11:10 AM wrote: Why not do a patch for VirtualBox to make it look in the right place first ? We've just done that for QEMU too, changing its search order to be /sys/bus/usb, /dev/bus/usb and only then /proc/bus/usb. Removing the whole /proc/bus/usb mount to solve one application's problem does not seem ideal. Furthermore, my original question still stands: Does anything require usbfs? You did not answer my original question. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Does anything require /proc/bus/usb?
Michael Cronenworth (m...@cchtml.com) said: Furthermore, my original question still stands: Does anything require usbfs? You did not answer my original question. mkinitrd does; that being said, that's only in the initramfs. Bill -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Does anything require /proc/bus/usb?
Bill Nottingham on 07/17/2009 11:30 AM wrote: mkinitrd does; that being said, that's only in the initramfs. OK, anything else? If mkinitrd bites the bullet in the new F12 feature then usbfs could be deprecated as well? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Does anything require /proc/bus/usb?
Enrico Scholz on 07/17/2009 12:14 PM wrote: Is there some upstream (linux kernel) discussion to remove usbfs? If not, it should stay as-is. Fedora/RHEL are the last major distros to retain usbfs support apparently. Why not patch VirtualBox to do it correctly? Why not patch your utilities? Again: The issue is not VirtualBox. I provided it as an example and people are running away with it. Stop. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Does anything require /proc/bus/usb?
Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com writes: Why not patch VirtualBox to do it correctly? Why not patch your utilities? You want to change something which is not broken and requests that I adapt my workflow and spent work into something to retain old functionality? Again: The issue is not VirtualBox. VirtualBox seems to be the issue. Or do you have other examples of software which uses crappy heuristics based upon the existence of /proc/bus/usb? Enrico -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Does anything require /proc/bus/usb?
Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com writes: You want to change something which is not broken and requests that I adapt my workflow and spent work into something to retain old functionality? What about old /dev (pre udev)? It was not broken. Sure, you couldn't add nice new functionality quickly, but it wasn't broken. Static /dev still exists and works perfectly in servers or embedded devices. Recent udev did not removed features (as you are requesting) and its extras seem to outweight its drawbacks (high boot times). Should we have kept HAL then? Keep using HAL forever? Dunno; I did and do not use hal on pre FC11 machines. This type of mindset works until there is a better solution. There are better solutions to usbfs today. Most distros use the newer alternative. There is not needed an alternative. usbfs and the udev/sysfs based approach coexist nicely. You ignored my initial comment on this and seem to want to be ignorant of such a fact. Which initial comment? That you want to remove a feature to workaround bugs in an application? VirtualBox seems to be the issue. Or do you have other examples of software which uses crappy heuristics based upon the existence of /proc/bus/usb? That particular software does not depend on usbfs, but it seems that VBox will be a scape goat for your whining until I convince you otherwise. If you had read the thread beforehand you probably would not have replied. Please read the whole thread. Sorry; you must be subscribed to another maillist than me. Here, no article in this thread justifies removal of usbfs with anything else than the broken VirtualBox. Enrico -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Does anything require /proc/bus/usb?
Enrico Scholz on 07/17/2009 03:41 PM wrote: Which initial comment? That you want to remove a feature to workaround bugs in an application? Michael Cronenworth wrote: Fedora/RHEL are the last major distros to retain usbfs support apparently. Sorry; you must be subscribed to another maillist than me. Here, no article in this thread justifies removal of usbfs with anything else than the broken VirtualBox. You're trolling now. For the last time: This has nothing to do with VirtualBox. There is no bug in VirtualBox. There is no patch required for VirtualBox. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
