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.
--
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
