From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1SAYM9-0003Rs-8c for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 03:06:29 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ABD06E092F for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 03:06:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-we0-f181.google.com (mail-we0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B361E0767 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 02:17:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by werm13 with SMTP id m13so1656712wer.40 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:17:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Q4/mMuWoccMwQSS7d4roJwrZF6cUyMS2ja72g9eTUpk=; b=u+9GGtkvU4BespFXqADwN8dph9WPVt89liE0qkQEBN/8VGxw0hXb7o0svwDSRDsme7 m8WyvyyXUISxxRuDcOcjvv8EizuTafEZ/YSJh4Zpjp910I0EewZI9yGmVWjzxNHnDsak bMMrOi9W8FbGhA49xTmWgKsTsAgXTHz0qs7l488GC1LaVcBF0XeQZb/l62IvgFWTAILM DqUwzsNtWAPCyj8DGwc+fk6k1GymaA2qRWUn4jFYzVHvIuiH6zRnyJAk+zuwH/C/6HBX zqyESTT4EGYwDbTHgY/AkuML+4ImNK9pzORZyq4JySMkdwO+QnOe7UL7Ae3ABS8a+RXa D2Qg== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-server@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-server@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.95.197 with SMTP id dm5mr752413wib.20.1332382626645; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:17:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.121.4 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:17:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4F670C97.1080602@loginet.hu> <4F699DC3.6030805@loginet.hu> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:17:06 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-server] udev or mdev? From: Daniel Reidy To: gentoo-server@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 5e78f205-4fbd-49f5-9761-471cf06fc9a4 X-Archives-Hash: 03a2cab83f3ddcdabdb814b997e0f970 people actually need an initramfs? my kernel has only what it needs, and nothing it doesn't. On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote: > > On Mar 21, 2012 4:23 PM, "Halassy Zolt=C3=A1n" wrot= e: >>> >>> IMO, initramfs adds yet another black box during server boot. >> >> >> The other way around, for me at least. I build my own initramfs, yet I >> don't know anything about mdev, just the fact it's part of busybox. So f= or >> me, mdev is a black box, while my initramfs definitely isn't. >> >> > > I see. Well, different views for different people, I guess. > > It's easier for me to bypass mdev (if it's b0rken) than to bypass initram= fs. > >>> And yet >>> another daemon in memory, something I certainly don't need on my static >>> virtualized servers. >> >> >> I agree with that. But why do you need mdev for a static system? A few >> mknods would suffice. >> > > It allows triggered action when I (for example) attach a (virtual) hard d= isk > to my VM. > > Rgds,