Fwd: Re: film at 11: kernel update breaks udev.
Harald Hoyer
harald at redhat.com
Mon Jul 23 13:35:27 UTC 2007
Richard Hughes schrieb:
> On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 00:55 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
>> Argh. So why _are_ we doing our own special rules instead
>> of using the upstream ones ? This isn't the only time I've
>> run into something like this with udev.
>
> Our udev is about 100x times slower than upstream...
>
> Richard.
>
>
What makes you think so?
Is the udevd binary slower?
Is selinux making it slower?
Are the default rules in
/etc/udev/rules.d/05-udev-early.rules
/etc/udev/rules.d/50-udev.rules
/etc/udev/rules.d/95-pam-console.rules
slow?
What is upstream? udev-113/etc/udev/redhat or udev-113/etc/udev/suse ????
Don't troll here!!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3623 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20070723/e309963d/attachment.bin>
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list