On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 14:57, Kay Sievers <kay.siev...@vrfy.org> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 14:40, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
>> But it could be improved yes. As you all said, maybe we should handle >> udev hotplug in a more throttled way by postponing non-critical >> devices and having everything else to be hotplug aware? > > That's not really possible, you can not really make such list, and you > need to handle all parent devices from all 'interesting' devices > anyway to expose them. > > The 'settle' service is only there for broken services. Originally it > wasn't even pulled into the base target but was free-hanging with > nobody getting blocked by it. Lennart pulled it in for a few broken > things and selinux to work, and it ended up blocking the base target > to be on the safe side for non-hotplug aware stuff. We might want to > re-check if that's really what we want. Udev no longer enables udev-settle.service by default now. basic.target is no longer blocked by it, and udev's coldplug will run in the background. Services that can not cope with today's hotplug world need to explicitly pull-in udev-settle.service and let it delay their execution until udev's coldplug run has fully finished. Alternatively, 'systemctl enable udev-settle.service' will enable it unconditionally. Kay _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
