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 1R1i99-0006dO-Pb for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 17:12:16 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 538D021C11D; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 17:12:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 26FBF21C048 for ; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 17:11:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 08 Sep 2011 17:11:03 -0000 Received: from p5B082D1C.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO pc.localnet) [91.8.45.28] by mail.gmx.net (mp069) with SMTP; 08 Sep 2011 19:11:03 +0200 X-Authenticated: #13997268 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/GEplScorGWmxNKWNu2jz+2o68tvk1zYXfpmwoef 0t3MaMDrILOYe4 From: Michael Schreckenbauer To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:11:04 +0200 Message-ID: <12534676.jn0Id4Zse9@pc> User-Agent: KMail/4.7.0 (Linux/2.6.38-gentoo; KDE/4.7.0; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <201108191109.34984.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <4842477.AF29R6J79c@pc> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: df70385519493585a7c2e0909ad56408 Am Donnerstag, 8. September 2011, 12:45:47 schrieb Canek Pel=E1ez Vald=E9= s: > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer =20 wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, 8. September 2011, 16:58:22 schrieb Neil Bothwick: > >> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 11:15:40 -0400, Michael Mol wrote: > >> > Perhaps udev's problem is that it's too complex, as a result of > >> > having > >> > too large a problem scope. > >>=20 > >> The problem, AIUI, is the udev can run any programs specified in t= he > >> rules files, and they may not be available before /usr is mounted.= > >=20 > > Funny thing is, devfs was removed, because of "unfixable > > race-conditions" > > (among other things iirc). What else is this then? > > An initramfs is not a proper fix for this design flaw, imo. >=20 > Then design the correct solution and implement it. If it's technicall= y > sound, it will prevail. I think it's a rather complicated problem wit= h > a non trivial solution, but the code is there if you feel like give i= t > a try. Where did I write, that I am in the position to write such a beast? I only take the freedom to name this a design flaw in udev. It needs things from userspace, which are not yet available at the poin= t it=20 requests them. An initramsfs is a workaround for this, not a proper fix= . > Regards. Regards, Michael