On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:36:29 +0100,
Kay Sievers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 17:12 +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:57:48 +0100,
> > Kay Sievers <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 16:48 +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:23:02 +0100,
> > > > Kay Sievers <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 12:45 +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:02:52 -0800, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > The uevent function will be called when the uevent is about to be sent to
> > > > > > > userspace to allow more environment variables to be added to the uevent.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It may be helpful to mention which uevents are by default created by
> > > > > > the kobject core (KOBJ_ADD, KOBJ_DEL, KOBJ_MOVE).
> > > > >
> > > > > I think, we should remove all these default events from the kobject
> > > > > core. We will not be able to manage the timing issues and "raw" kobject
> > > > > users should request the events on their own, when they are finished
> > > > > adding stuff to the kobject. I see currently no way to solve the
> > > > > "attributes created after the event" problem. The new
> > > > > *_create_and_register functions do not allow default attributes to be
> > > > > created, which will just lead to serious trouble when someone wants to
> > > > > use udev to set defaults and such things. We may just want to require an
> > > > > explicit call to send the event?
> > > >
> > > > There will always be attributes that will show up later (for example,
> > > > after a device is activated). Probably the best approach is to keep the
> > > > default uevents, but have the attribute-adder send another uevent when
> > > > they are done?
> > >
> > > Uh, that's more an exception where we can't give guarantees because of
> > > very specific hardware setups, and it would be an additional "change"
> > > event. There are valid cases for this, but only a _very_ few.
> > >
> > > There is absolutely no reason not to do it right with the "add" event,
> > > just because we are too lazy to solve it proper the current code. It's
> > > just so broken by design, what we are doing today. :)
> >
> > I'm worrying a bit about changes that impact the whole code tree in
> > lots of places. I'd be fine with the device layer doing its uevent
> > manually in device_add() at the very end, though. (This would allow
> > drivers to add attributes in their probe function before the uevent,
> > for example.)
<Looks at device_add() again: It already throws the uevent manually...>
>
> The driver core does use the split already in most places, I did that
> long ago. There are not too many (~20) users of kobject_register(), and
> it's a pretty straight-forward change to change that to _init, _add,
> _uevent, and get rid of that totally useless "convenience api".
>
> I think there is no longer any excuse to keep that broken code around,
> and even require to document that it's broken. The whole purpose of the
> uevent is userspace consumption, which just doesn't work correctly with
> the code we offer. The fix is trivial, and should be done now, and we no
> longer need to fiddle around timing issues, just because we are too
> lazy.
>
> I propose the removal of _all_ funtions that have *register* in their
> name, and always require the following sequence:
> _init()
> _add()
> _uevent(_ADD)
>
> _uevent(_REMOVE)
> _del()
> _put()
>
> The _create_and_register() functions would become _create_ and_add()
> and will need an additional _uevent() call after they populated the
> object.
I'm absolutely fine with doing that at the kobject level (after all,
it's a quite contained change, and the uevent function explicitely
works on a kobject).
For the other _register()/_unregister() functions, it's a different
piece of cake. They are:
- distributed through lot of different code
- at a higher level than kobjects, and kobject_uevent() acts on the
kobject
- usually encapsulating a sequence that wants to be used by almost all
callers, and that includes a uevent
I don't think we want people registering a higher level object and then
wondering why udev doesn't seem to take notice of it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
