Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: The State Of Killing CONFIG_VT, Moving To User-Space

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    Maybe I got that wrong and confused VTs with TTYs.
    @Ericg: Busybox uses mdev, it also has its own init implementation, but I usually don't use that, since I don't have a need for runlevels and stuff, I use a custom script (running in ash, which also comes with Busybox) for initializing all of the system I need and do the tasks I need to do.
    If this is still working without having to add unnecessary complexity with this new approach, then I got this wrong and apologize. If this is not anymore possible it would be a shame.
    Whats busybox gonna do when udev is moved back in kernel? Seems like that would conflict with mdev at that point...

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    Whats busybox gonna do when udev is moved back in kernel? Seems like that would conflict with mdev at that point...
    How could udev possibly be moved "back" in to the kernel? It's userspace daemon with various dependencies like glibc and kmod. If someone were to fork systemd-udev it would really make no difference. systemd based distributions would still use systemd-udev, Android would still use their implementation and nothing would change for mdev ...and who exactly is supposed to maintain this alleged udev fork? It seems all major udev developers very a-ok with the systemd merge.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teho View Post
    How could udev possibly be moved "back" in to the kernel? It's userspace daemon with various dependencies like glibc and kmod. If someone were to fork systemd-udev it would really make no difference. systemd based distributions would still use systemd-udev, Android would still use their implementation and nothing would change for mdev ...and who exactly is supposed to maintain this alleged udev fork? It seems all major udev developers very a-ok with the systemd merge.
    back is bad wording on my part, but the topic of in-kernel udev came up back when the topic of in-kernel dbus came up. I don't know what ever came from that discussion (it was a dev who brought it up), I'm trying to track it down now.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    back is bad wording on my part, but the topic of in-kernel udev came up back when the topic of in-kernel dbus came up. I don't know what ever came from that discussion (it was a dev who brought it up), I'm trying to track it down now.
    I do remember that conversation.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    I do remember that conversation.
    Okay at least I know I'm not going crazy XD

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    527

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teho View Post
    How could udev possibly be moved "back" in to the kernel? It's userspace daemon with various dependencies like glibc and kmod. If someone were to fork systemd-udev it would really make no difference. systemd based distributions would still use systemd-udev, Android would still use their implementation and nothing would change for mdev ...and who exactly is supposed to maintain this alleged udev fork? It seems all major udev developers very a-ok with the systemd merge.
    eudev is still in good shape, the last commits only happened several days ago.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M1kkko View Post
    The more I think about this, the more stupid it sounds.
    Aye! Its a an answer in search of a question that was never asked. But knowing Red Hat you will see in Fedora soon.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •