Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
Greg KH wrote: Oops, yes, the 064 release fixed that. Sorry for not updateing the bugzilla entry. That is now taken care of. Just out of curiosity, know what happened to cause that? --Kumba -- Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere. --Elrond -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 07:40:03PM -0400, Kumba wrote: Greg KH wrote: Oops, yes, the 064 release fixed that. Sorry for not updateing the bugzilla entry. That is now taken care of. Just out of curiosity, know what happened to cause that? Unaligned data accesses. Was fixed by: http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commit;h=422d5becc339304805bbe1e359f6389633036a98 thanks, greg k-h -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 12:37:52AM +0100, Carlos Silva wrote: Sorry to only reply to this now, but i saw a mail of you talking about ndevfs. will that go into 2.6.13? not that i use devfs, 'cause i don't, i'm just curious. No, ndevfs was written in a bout of temporary insanity. I will not submit it to go into the main kernel tree, and apologize for ever writing it in the first place. thanks, greg k-h -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:46 -0700, Greg KH wrote: Ok, now that devfs is removed from the 2.6 kernel tree[1], I think it's time to start to revisit some of the /dev naming rules that we currently are living with[2]. To start with, the 061 version of udev offers a big memory savings if you use the default kernel name of a device[3]. If you do that, it does not create a file in its database in /dev/.udevdb/ If we can move away from some of our devfs-like names, we stand to reclaim a lot of memory from everyone's machines. As an example, if we drop all of the tty/pts/vc/vcc symlinks, and just go with the default kernel name, we save 2.5Mb of space in tempfs/ramfs. I've done this on my machines and everything seems to work just fine (it looks like everything that was trying to use a tty node was just using the symlink anyway.) So, anyone have any objections to me changing the default udev naming scheme in this manner? Next up, that loony block device naming scheme (more on that later...) thanks, greg k-h Sorry to only reply to this now, but i saw a mail of you talking about ndevfs. will that go into 2.6.13? not that i use devfs, 'cause i don't, i'm just curious. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Monday 11 July 2005 03:47 am, Martin Schlemmer wrote: On Sat, 2005-07-09 at 20:34 +0200, Richard Fish wrote: for d in 0 1 2 3; do /sbin/mdadm --assemble --config=partitions --auto=md --super-minor=$d /dev/md$d /dev/null 21 done Maybe something similar will be required in /sbin/rc, like you currently do for LVM and the device mapper? It isn't a critical problem though...I am pretty sure there are only a few Gentoo users who will ever see this...maybe as few as 1!!! Mike, what do you think? This viable? We could maybe add an init addon for md, and move the lvm/whatever stuff to that as well? i dont see the point ... ive already fixed raidtools / mdadm to generate device nodes before running since udev doesnt do it correctly/at all -mike Oh, yes, I see that now. Sorry for the noise. -Richard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
On Sat, 2005-07-09 at 20:34 +0200, Richard Fish wrote: I.o.w. is it still necessary to have RC_DEVICE_TARBALL=yes as a default or can we move to a pure udev system and change the default to no. I've been running my boxes successfully with no since the option showed up just fine :) I think people is under a misconception about this option and ... you really only need to enable this for a driver that is not sysfs aware (nvidia comes to mind - any others?), or if you have some custom nodes in /dev that you cannot do via udev ... And I am pretty sure (correct me if I am wrong) that all (or most?) in-kernel drivers are sysfs aware, and only a handful outside are not. Well, I do have a small issue with the software RAID (md) driver, in that when autodetection is not performed by the driver (due to either being a module or booting the system through an initramfs), no sysfs entries or device nodes are created. Normally my RAID system is brought up inside my initramfs with static nodes, so this really only affects my recovery CD, where I need to run: for d in 0 1 2 3; do /sbin/mdadm --assemble --config=partitions --auto=md --super-minor=$d /dev/md$d /dev/null 21 done Maybe something similar will be required in /sbin/rc, like you currently do for LVM and the device mapper? It isn't a critical problem though...I am pretty sure there are only a few Gentoo users who will ever see this...maybe as few as 1!!! Mike, what do you think? This viable? We could maybe add an init addon for md, and move the lvm/whatever stuff to that as well? -- Martin Schlemmer Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer Cape Town, South Africa signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:18:12AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:46 -0700, Greg KH wrote: To start with, the 061 version of udev offers a big memory savings if you use the default kernel name of a device[3]. If you do that, it does not create a file in its database in /dev/.udevdb/ So if we were to switch to udev 061 in genkernel, it would shrink memory usage in our initrd/initramfs, provided we made everything use the LSB device names/nodes, versus the devfs ones, correct? Not in the initrd/initramfs, but in the tmpfs partition that udev uses to create the /dev entries. Well, I guess you could say the initrd/initramfs if that is where udev is mounted on early startup (I haven't looked at how genkernel does this in a long time, sorry.) And yes, the memory savings is there, if we use the LSB names only vs the devfs name and the symlink like we currently do. To see this, look at how much space /dev/.udevdb/ takes up right now with 062 udev. Then change the following rules in /etc/udev/rules.d/50-udev.rules with the diff at the end of this email. Then reboot and look at the size of the /dev/.udevdb/ directory again. I think you will notice a huge space savings. thanks, greg k-h --- 50-udev.rules.orig 2005-07-08 10:10:24.0 -0700 +++ 50-udev.rules 2005-07-08 10:11:16.0 -0700 @@ -139,9 +139,9 @@ # tty devices KERNEL==console, NAME=%k, GROUP=tty, MODE=0600 KERNEL==tty, NAME=%k, GROUP=tty, MODE=0666 -KERNEL==tty[0-9]*, NAME=vc/%n, SYMLINK+=%k, GROUP=tty -KERNEL==ttyS[0-9]*, NAME=tts/%n, SYMLINK+=%k, GROUP=tty -KERNEL==ttyUSB[0-9]*,NAME=tts/USB%n, GROUP=tty, MODE=0660 +KERNEL==tty[0-9]*, NAME=%k, GROUP=tty +KERNEL==ttyS[0-9]*, NAME=%k, GROUP=tty +KERNEL==ttyUSB[0-9]*,NAME=%k, GROUP=tty, MODE=0660 KERNEL==ippp0, NAME=%k, GROUP=tty KERNEL==isdn*NAME=%k, GROUP=tty KERNEL==dcbri*, NAME=%k, GROUP=tty @@ -149,14 +149,14 @@ # pty devices KERNEL==ptmx,NAME=%k, GROUP=tty, MODE=0666 -KERNEL==pty[p-za-e][0-9a-f]*,NAME=pty/m%n, SYMLINK+=%k, GROUP=tty -KERNEL==tty[p-za-e][0-9a-f]*,NAME=pty/s%n, SYMLINK+=%k, GROUP=tty +KERNEL==pty[p-za-e][0-9a-f]*,NAME=%k, GROUP=tty +KERNEL==tty[p-za-e][0-9a-f]*,NAME=%k, GROUP=tty # vc devices -KERNEL==vcs, NAME=vcc/0, SYMLINK+=%k, GROUP=tty -KERNEL==vcs[0-9]*, NAME=vcc/%n, SYMLINK+=%k, GROUP=tty -KERNEL==vcsa,NAME=vcc/a0, SYMLINK+=%k, GROUP=tty -KERNEL==vcsa[0-9]*, NAME=vcc/a%n, SYMLINK+=%k, GROUP=tty +KERNEL==vcs, NAME=%k, GROUP=tty +KERNEL==vcs[0-9]*, NAME=%k, GROUP=tty +KERNEL==vcsa,NAME=%k, GROUP=tty +KERNEL==vcsa[0-9]*, NAME=%k, GROUP=tty # memory devices KERNEL==random, NAME=%k, MODE=0666 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:06:45 -0700 Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Heh, yes. While looking in there, I was wondering if anyone would object to splitting the udev and devfs stuff out of the main rc script, like other parts have been split out? That way I could bundle the udev portions in the udev package and then keep them up to date (like the save modified device nodes logic) ? I've been trying to get spanky to do this for a while now. If you could help annoy him enough that he actually does it I would be happy. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 07:49:34PM +0200, Michiel de Bruijne wrote: On Thursday 07 July 2005 00:46, Greg KH wrote: Ok, now that devfs is removed from the 2.6 kernel tree[1], I think it's time to start to revisit some of the /dev naming rules that we currently are living with[2]. To start with, the 061 version of udev offers a big memory savings if you use the default kernel name of a device[3]. If you do that, it does not create a file in its database in /dev/.udevdb/ Are there any ebuilds in the tree that are not sysfs/udev-aware? Not that I am aware of. Anyone else know of any? I.o.w. is it still necessary to have RC_DEVICE_TARBALL=yes as a default or can we move to a pure udev system and change the default to no. I've been running my boxes successfully with no since the option showed up just fine :) thanks, greg k-hj -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
On Saturday 09 July 2005 00:25, Greg KH wrote: I.o.w. is it still necessary to have RC_DEVICE_TARBALL=yes as a default or can we move to a pure udev system and change the default to no. I've been running my boxes successfully with no since the option showed up just fine :) Same over here on all boxes maintained by me (21 with different hardware). Using the tarball creates a lot of unnecessary clutter in /dev If all ebuilds/enough ebuilds don't need to have the tarball, I would say change the default and let all users enjoy the pure udev ride. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 15:25 -0700, Greg KH wrote: On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 07:49:34PM +0200, Michiel de Bruijne wrote: On Thursday 07 July 2005 00:46, Greg KH wrote: Ok, now that devfs is removed from the 2.6 kernel tree[1], I think it's time to start to revisit some of the /dev naming rules that we currently are living with[2]. To start with, the 061 version of udev offers a big memory savings if you use the default kernel name of a device[3]. If you do that, it does not create a file in its database in /dev/.udevdb/ Are there any ebuilds in the tree that are not sysfs/udev-aware? Not that I am aware of. Anyone else know of any? Neither. Or rather, I do not know about anything that should not work with LSB /dev ... I.o.w. is it still necessary to have RC_DEVICE_TARBALL=yes as a default or can we move to a pure udev system and change the default to no. I've been running my boxes successfully with no since the option showed up just fine :) I think people is under a misconception about this option and ... you really only need to enable this for a driver that is not sysfs aware (nvidia comes to mind - any others?), or if you have some custom nodes in /dev that you cannot do via udev ... And I am pretty sure (correct me if I am wrong) that all (or most?) in-kernel drivers are sysfs aware, and only a handful outside are not. -- Martin Schlemmer Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer Cape Town, South Africa signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
On Sat, 2005-07-09 at 02:44 +0200, Michiel de Bruijne wrote: On Saturday 09 July 2005 01:35, Martin Schlemmer wrote: I think people is under a misconception about this option and ... you really only need to enable this for a driver that is not sysfs aware (nvidia comes to mind - any others?) nvidia is also sysfs-aware and /dev-entries are created with udev, I have RC_DEVICE_TARBALL=no set on all machines I maintain and a few of them have a nvidia-card. Works perfectly. Hmm, what driver version? The earlier versions used to have a patch I wrote to get the support and then they did their own code. The last two or so releases however did not support this as far as I know (could be wrong, but do not look that way .. or with 2.6.11/12+ and 1.0.7* at least): - lycan ~ # grep nvidia /dev/.udevdb/* lycan ~ # bzcat /lib64/udev-state/devices.tar.bz2 | tar -t nvidiactl nvidia0 lycan ~ # - Regards, -- Martin Schlemmer Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer Cape Town, South Africa signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
maillog: 08/07/2005-10:12:52(-0700): Greg KH types --- 50-udev.rules.orig2005-07-08 10:10:24.0 -0700 +++ 50-udev.rules 2005-07-08 10:11:16.0 -0700 @@ -139,9 +139,9 @@ # tty devices KERNEL==console, NAME=%k, GROUP=tty, MODE=0600 KERNEL==tty, NAME=%k, GROUP=tty, MODE=0666 -KERNEL==tty[0-9]*, NAME=vc/%n, SYMLINK+=%k, GROUP=tty -KERNEL==ttyS[0-9]*,NAME=tts/%n, SYMLINK+=%k, GROUP=tty -KERNEL==ttyUSB[0-9]*, NAME=tts/USB%n, GROUP=tty, MODE=0660 +KERNEL==tty[0-9]*, NAME=%k, GROUP=tty +KERNEL==ttyS[0-9]*,NAME=%k, GROUP=tty +KERNEL==ttyUSB[0-9]*, NAME=%k, GROUP=tty, MODE=0660 KERNEL==ippp0, NAME=%k, GROUP=tty KERNEL==isdn* NAME=%k, GROUP=tty KERNEL==dcbri*,NAME=%k, GROUP=tty @@ -149,14 +149,14 @@ # pty devices KERNEL==ptmx, NAME=%k, GROUP=tty, MODE=0666 -KERNEL==pty[p-za-e][0-9a-f]*, NAME=pty/m%n, SYMLINK+=%k, GROUP=tty -KERNEL==tty[p-za-e][0-9a-f]*, NAME=pty/s%n, SYMLINK+=%k, GROUP=tty +KERNEL==pty[p-za-e][0-9a-f]*, NAME=%k, GROUP=tty +KERNEL==tty[p-za-e][0-9a-f]*, NAME=%k, GROUP=tty # vc devices -KERNEL==vcs, NAME=vcc/0, SYMLINK+=%k, GROUP=tty -KERNEL==vcs[0-9]*, NAME=vcc/%n, SYMLINK+=%k, GROUP=tty -KERNEL==vcsa, NAME=vcc/a0, SYMLINK+=%k, GROUP=tty -KERNEL==vcsa[0-9]*,NAME=vcc/a%n, SYMLINK+=%k, GROUP=tty +KERNEL==vcs, NAME=%k, GROUP=tty +KERNEL==vcs[0-9]*, NAME=%k, GROUP=tty +KERNEL==vcsa, NAME=%k, GROUP=tty +KERNEL==vcsa[0-9]*,NAME=%k, GROUP=tty # memory devices KERNEL==random,NAME=%k, MODE=0666 I've been trying to get this for a while, but isn't it OK to omit NAME=%k since that's the default anyway? Or is there some other idea, related to those last-rule processed things. I think it's prettier to not specify redundand stuff and only specify what you want to have *changed*. -- () Georgi Georgiev () People that can't find something to live () ()[EMAIL PROTECTED]() for always seem to find something to die () () +81(90)2877-8845 () for. The problem is, they usually want the () () --- () rest of us to die for it too.() -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 01:35:58AM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote: On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 15:25 -0700, Greg KH wrote: On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 07:49:34PM +0200, Michiel de Bruijne wrote: I.o.w. is it still necessary to have RC_DEVICE_TARBALL=yes as a default or can we move to a pure udev system and change the default to no. I've been running my boxes successfully with no since the option showed up just fine :) I think people is under a misconception about this option and ... you really only need to enable this for a driver that is not sysfs aware (nvidia comes to mind - any others?), or if you have some custom nodes in /dev that you cannot do via udev ... And I am pretty sure (correct me if I am wrong) that all (or most?) in-kernel drivers are sysfs aware, and only a handful outside are not. Only think in-kernel that I know of that do not work with udev is isdn. Supposidly those developers are working on it... As for nvidia, they will not be supporting udev due to licensing issues with their kernel code. I've worked with their developers and they have switched back to the way that vmware does it, their startup scripts just manually creates the device nodes, which works just fine with udev. So yes, I don't think that anyone (unless you have isdn), needs this option. thanks, greg k-h -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 10:00:31AM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote: # vc devices -KERNEL==vcs, NAME=vcc/0, SYMLINK+=%k, GROUP=tty -KERNEL==vcs[0-9]*, NAME=vcc/%n, SYMLINK+=%k, GROUP=tty -KERNEL==vcsa,NAME=vcc/a0, SYMLINK+=%k, GROUP=tty -KERNEL==vcsa[0-9]*, NAME=vcc/a%n, SYMLINK+=%k, GROUP=tty +KERNEL==vcs, NAME=%k, GROUP=tty +KERNEL==vcs[0-9]*, NAME=%k, GROUP=tty +KERNEL==vcsa,NAME=%k, GROUP=tty +KERNEL==vcsa[0-9]*, NAME=%k, GROUP=tty # memory devices KERNEL==random, NAME=%k, MODE=0666 I've been trying to get this for a while, but isn't it OK to omit NAME=%k since that's the default anyway? Or is there some other idea, related to those last-rule processed things. I think it's prettier to not specify redundand stuff and only specify what you want to have *changed*. Yes, it should work just fine without the NAME=%k, but it's safe to put it there. It helps others when reading the rules and learning how to write their own. thanks, greg k-h -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
John Mylchreest wrote: No objections here. I've been waiting fort his move for a little while now. The only real problems will be with those 2.4 (devfs) users who refuse to move, maybe this is good enough incentive. Just to make sure on a few things, we're talking x86 users here being the hardcore 2.4 types, right? While I'm all for 2.6, mips-side, we've still got some issues on IP22 (Indy/Indigo2) systems that forces me to keep a 2.4.31 ebuild around. Sparc is also in a similar, although much bigger boat, where a whole lot of 2.6.x releases just don't work for various systems, thus they have to stick with 2.4.x as well. Any of these changes that may affect 2.4/devfs usage need to keep this in mind that some of us who still use 2.4/devfs may not be doing so out of choice, simply because it's the only option we have. --Kumba -- Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere. --Elrond -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:56:30PM -0400, Kumba wrote: John Mylchreest wrote: No objections here. I've been waiting fort his move for a little while now. The only real problems will be with those 2.4 (devfs) users who refuse to move, maybe this is good enough incentive. Just to make sure on a few things, we're talking x86 users here being the hardcore 2.4 types, right? Yes. While I'm all for 2.6, mips-side, we've still got some issues on IP22 (Indy/Indigo2) systems that forces me to keep a 2.4.31 ebuild around. Sparc is also in a similar, although much bigger boat, where a whole lot of 2.6.x releases just don't work for various systems, thus they have to stick with 2.4.x as well. I understand that other arches need to stay at 2.4 for various reasons. Hopefully those issues will be fixed so that this situation doesn't stay that way for much longer. I am supprised that Sparc64 is stuck with 2.4, as the main kernel developers of that tree work on 2.6 everyday. As for mips, I thought the recent (few kernel versions ago) merge brought you all up to speed? Anything that I can do to help this, please let me know. Any of these changes that may affect 2.4/devfs usage need to keep this in mind that some of us who still use 2.4/devfs may not be doing so out of choice, simply because it's the only option we have. You do have the static /dev option :) Anyway, no, I don't want to break your boxes at all, that's why I want to stay with the LSB naming scheme, which the default devfs config also supports. thanks, greg k-h -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:46 -0700, Greg KH wrote: So, anyone have any objections to me changing the default udev naming scheme in this manner? I'm all for the move - I always disable the devfs naming scheme in udev anyways. Next up, that loony block device naming scheme (more on that later...) W00t :) ./Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:46 -0700, Greg KH wrote: To start with, the 061 version of udev offers a big memory savings if you use the default kernel name of a device[3]. If you do that, it does not create a file in its database in /dev/.udevdb/ So if we were to switch to udev 061 in genkernel, it would shrink memory usage in our initrd/initramfs, provided we made everything use the LSB device names/nodes, versus the devfs ones, correct? If we can move away from some of our devfs-like names, we stand to reclaim a lot of memory from everyone's machines. As an example, if we drop all of the tty/pts/vc/vcc symlinks, and just go with the default kernel name, we save 2.5Mb of space in tempfs/ramfs. I've done this on my machines and everything seems to work just fine (it looks like everything that was trying to use a tty node was just using the symlink anyway.) So, anyone have any objections to me changing the default udev naming scheme in this manner? None here. Anything that gives us more usable RAM even after we've snatched some for the initrd and for /dev and for the tmpfs of the LiveCD/InstallCD is fine by me. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager Games - Developer Gentoo Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
maillog: 06/07/2005-15:46:51(-0700): Greg KH types
Ok, now that devfs is removed from the 2.6 kernel tree[1], I think it's
time to start to revisit some of the /dev naming rules that we currently
are living with[2].
To start with, the 061 version of udev offers a big memory savings if
you use the default kernel name of a device[3]. If you do that, it does
not create a file in its database in /dev/.udevdb/
Ah, that will break /etc/init.d/halt.sh
Particularly the stuff around here:
ebegin Saving device nodes
...
cd /dev
# Find all devices
find . -xdev -type b -or -type c -or -type l | cut -d/ -f2- \
${devices_real}
# Figure out what udev created
eval $(grep '^[[:space:]]*udev_db=' /etc/udev/udev.conf)
if [[ -d ${udev_db} ]]; then
# New udev_db is clear text ...
udevinfo=$(cat ${udev_db}/*)
else
# Old one is not ...
udevinfo=$(udevinfo -d)
fi
# This basically strips 'S:' and 'N:' from the db output, and then
# print all the nodes/symlinks udev created ...
...
The script will be unable to figure out what device is being handled by
udev, and what is not.
--
|Georgi Georgiev | I read the newspaper avidly. It is my one|
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]| form of continuous fiction. -- Aneurin |
| +81(90)2877-8845 | Bevan|
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 03:55:45PM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote: On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:46 -0700, Greg KH wrote: Ok, now that devfs is removed from the 2.6 kernel tree[1], I think it's time to start to revisit some of the /dev naming rules that we currently are living with[2]. To start with, the 061 version of udev offers a big memory savings if you use the default kernel name of a device[3]. If you do that, it does not create a file in its database in /dev/.udevdb/ If we can move away from some of our devfs-like names, we stand to reclaim a lot of memory from everyone's machines. As an example, if we drop all of the tty/pts/vc/vcc symlinks, and just go with the default kernel name, we save 2.5Mb of space in tempfs/ramfs. I've done this on my machines and everything seems to work just fine (it looks like everything that was trying to use a tty node was just using the symlink anyway.) So, anyone have any objections to me changing the default udev naming scheme in this manner? Fine with me. I assume we will need to keep the rcscript support for those die-hard 2.4 users still, but hopefully we can eventually drop that as well. What rcscript support? Next up, that loony block device naming scheme (more on that later...) Heh. I hope that we will still at least just do the cdsymlinks stuff (just the /dev/cdrom, /dev/dvd, etc stuff) as that do make things a bit easier for multimedia stuff. Yes, I don't see us dropping that, as it's just too useful :) [3] HAL needs a patch to be able to handle this. It's posted on the hal development mailing lists and will be checked in real-soon-now. I just think we need to make sure this is in first ... The HAL patch? It's now in HAL's cvs tree, don't know when they will do a new release. Lastly on an unrelated note ... I have a rule: - # cat /etc/udev/rules.d/40-dm.rules KERNEL=dm-[0-9]*, PROGRAM=/sbin/devmap_name %M %m, NAME=mapper/%c, SYMLINK=%c - And in theory it should be the last rule to set the name ... however the default one in 50-udev.rules overrides it, and I have to add OPTIONS=last_rule Yes. Want me to just change the default rule to yours? thanks, greg k-h -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:52:20PM +0100, John Mylchreest wrote: On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:46 -0700, Greg KH wrote: If we can move away from some of our devfs-like names, we stand to reclaim a lot of memory from everyone's machines. As an example, if we drop all of the tty/pts/vc/vcc symlinks, and just go with the default kernel name, we save 2.5Mb of space in tempfs/ramfs. I've done this on my machines and everything seems to work just fine (it looks like everything that was trying to use a tty node was just using the symlink anyway.) So, anyone have any objections to me changing the default udev naming scheme in this manner? No objections here. I've been waiting fort his move for a little while now. The only real problems will be with those 2.4 (devfs) users who refuse to move, maybe this is good enough incentive. As the default devfs configuration in gentoo is to use the LSB naming scheme, only people who will have customized their devfs configuration would have issues. Oh, and there seem to be some people that rely on the devfs naming scheme for block devices in /etc/fstab, for some odd reason. Anyway, I don't think this will break any devfs usages, they can keep using 2.4 and devfs all they want, the rest of the world will move on :) thanks, greg k-h -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 13:52 -0700, Greg KH wrote: On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 03:55:45PM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote: On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:46 -0700, Greg KH wrote: Ok, now that devfs is removed from the 2.6 kernel tree[1], I think it's time to start to revisit some of the /dev naming rules that we currently are living with[2]. To start with, the 061 version of udev offers a big memory savings if you use the default kernel name of a device[3]. If you do that, it does not create a file in its database in /dev/.udevdb/ If we can move away from some of our devfs-like names, we stand to reclaim a lot of memory from everyone's machines. As an example, if we drop all of the tty/pts/vc/vcc symlinks, and just go with the default kernel name, we save 2.5Mb of space in tempfs/ramfs. I've done this on my machines and everything seems to work just fine (it looks like everything that was trying to use a tty node was just using the symlink anyway.) So, anyone have any objections to me changing the default udev naming scheme in this manner? Fine with me. I assume we will need to keep the rcscript support for those die-hard 2.4 users still, but hopefully we can eventually drop that as well. What rcscript support? Err, sorry, all the crap in /sbin/rc ... Next up, that loony block device naming scheme (more on that later...) [3] HAL needs a patch to be able to handle this. It's posted on the hal development mailing lists and will be checked in real-soon-now. I just think we need to make sure this is in first ... The HAL patch? It's now in HAL's cvs tree, don't know when they will do a new release. Well, you did provide the patch, so hopefully foser or somebody else will just add it. Foser ping ... Lastly on an unrelated note ... I have a rule: - # cat /etc/udev/rules.d/40-dm.rules KERNEL=dm-[0-9]*, PROGRAM=/sbin/devmap_name %M %m, NAME=mapper/%c, SYMLINK=%c - And in theory it should be the last rule to set the name ... however the default one in 50-udev.rules overrides it, and I have to add OPTIONS=last_rule Yes. Want me to just change the default rule to yours? I do not think that will work, as that is not distributed with either udev or device-mapper, but multipath-tools (sorda silly if you ask me, as I think it would have been more appropriate with device-mapper, but what the hey). Anyhow, I'll see if I can hack a patch or something up so that NAME= will also be seen as as a rule that 'set the name' Thanks, -- Martin Schlemmer Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer Cape Town, South Africa signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 12:06:04AM +0100, Roy Marples wrote: This has absolutely zero to do with udev, but the point is that devfs vs udev flames cannot be ignored until non udev supported kernels from all arches are removed from the tree. It also has nothing to do with the naming scheme we use in /dev, as the network stuff you mention don't care about /dev, right? So, changing the udev naming scheme should not break SPARC, as I am trying to migrate back to the standard LSB naming scheme. After we get there, then I'll add the persistant naming symlinks that it's looking like all distros are going to be agreeing apon in a few months... thanks, greg k-h -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
On Wednesday 06 July 2005 07:06 pm, Roy Marples wrote: On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:46 -0700, Greg KH wrote: Ok, now that devfs is removed from the 2.6 kernel tree[1], I think it's time to start to revisit some of the /dev naming rules that we currently are living with[2]. [2] devfs vs. udev flames will dutifully be ignored. Give up, it will do You no good to argue. My understanding was that we still support old 2.2 kernels for SPARC users as eradictor (iirc) posted a patch that only allowed iproute2 support if the kernel supported it. 2.6 kernels support it by default - were require /proc/net/netlink for iproute2. and eventually i'd like to get m68k into the 2.2 kernels ... This has absolutely zero to do with udev, but the point is that devfs vs udev flames cannot be ignored until non udev supported kernels from all arches are removed from the tree. i dont see how 2.2 kernels matter since they dont even support devfs ? -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
