From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dzjno-00040H-Sf for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2005 23:34:37 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j71NXiif015075; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 23:33:44 GMT Received: from perch.kroah.org (mail.kroah.org [69.55.234.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j71NW4r2021296 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 23:32:04 GMT Received: from [192.168.0.10] (c-24-22-115-24.hsd1.or.comcast.net [24.22.115.24]) (authenticated) by perch.kroah.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j71NWHw31992 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2005 16:32:17 -0700 Received: from greg by echidna.kroah.org with local (masqmail 0.2.19) id 1DzjlM-0y2-00 for ; Mon, 01 Aug 2005 16:32:04 -0700 Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 16:32:04 -0700 From: Greg KH To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on Message-ID: <20050801233204.GA3593@kroah.com> References: <20050706224651.GA19853@kroah.com> <1120745893.11567.42.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <20050708171252.GD29606@kroah.com> <20050801221403.GA2244@kroah.com> <42EEAEF4.4080504@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42EEAEF4.4080504@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: 4ff6edff-3948-4e18-a2bc-e043dcd1046b X-Archives-Hash: 44c4b88f06cf38625f3373b9c38cc3e3 On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 07:23:32PM -0400, Kumba wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > >Ok, 064-r1 version of udev does this for tty and console devices. The > >old devfs names are now gone. Because of this, and some other config > >file tweaks, starting udev now only takes .5 seconds on my old, slow > >laptop, instead of 5 seconds. Hopefully others will also see such an > >increase. > > > >Now to implement the persistent block device names that we showed > >everyone at OLS... > > Does this happen to also fix the bus error on sparc mentioned in Bug > #99290? I see in the Changelog a reference to a sparc fix, but the bug > hasn't been updated regarding the status. Oops, yes, the 064 release fixed that. Sorry for not updateing the bugzilla entry. That is now taken care of. thanks, greg k-h -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list