From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15C8D13800E for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:47:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 01F97E04E7; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:46:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com (ironport2-out.teksavvy.com [206.248.154.182]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 557B6E0507 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:44:31 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgwKAG6Zu09FpaOq/2dsb2JhbABEsnYDgRiBCIIVAQEEAScTHCgLCzQSFCU3iAkFC7l6BIsIWoFEgjxiA40+h1yFX4g6gViDBQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,637,1330923600"; d="scan'208";a="194338172" Received: from 69-165-163-170.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO waltdnes.org) ([69.165.163.170]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with SMTP; 30 Jul 2012 12:44:29 -0400 Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:44:04 -0400 From: "Walter Dnes" Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:44:04 -0400 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: udev <-> mdev Message-ID: <20120730164404.GA8879@waltdnes.org> References: <20120713200449.GA6292@waltdnes.org> <50008143.3050708@gentoo.org> <20120714001343.GA6879@waltdnes.org> <20120714012207.GB6930@waltdnes.org> <501520B4.1080208@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.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: <501520B4.1080208@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 3f1577a7-bce9-440b-ae92-4dc8cd4e0f13 X-Archives-Hash: 62c25ce8b131913211acc9685048f541 On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 01:38:28PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote > Forking udev and making sure it stays as lean as possible isn't that bad. That describes mdev to a T. No need to re-invent the wheel. > Making mdev a bit richer and enjoy the speed advantage of busybox > over stand alone shells could be another option. The busybox people would probably not want "additional functionality" built-in. A better route would be "mdev helper programs" or "shims" that we can add to Gentoo as required. Actually, shell scripts launched by /etc/mdev.conf can be quite powerful. E.g. wiki page https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev/Automount_USB has ash scripts to implement auto(un)mounting of USB devices. It works for me, but I'm waiting for feedback from other users before moving it out of beta ("Work In Progress") status. Once I'm confident in the scripts, I'll link to them from the main mdev page at https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev In case you're wondering, I'm not a C programmer, so scripting was the only available tool for me. > Most of the perceived speed in non-shell init systems is due not > having to spawn as many processes. A full busybox wouldn't spawn > many processes. It would be an interesting project to make a busybox-based Gentoo fork. But there are differences between busybox utilities and standalone gnu utilities. This is especially important for a source-based distro like Gentoo, where all sorts of gnu utilities get excercised by build scripts each time you do an update. -- Walter Dnes