From: greg@kroah.com Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:04:23 +0000 (-0800) Subject: [PATCH] update the FAQ with info about bad modprobe events from the devfs scheme... X-Git-Tag: 009~4 X-Git-Url: https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~ianmdlvl/git?p=elogind.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=470e365d5338fbdcc8019d790c97ed1229de0196 [PATCH] update the FAQ with info about bad modprobe events from the devfs scheme... --- diff --git a/FAQ b/FAQ index d9aebde0d..1f7ceb0dd 100644 --- a/FAQ +++ b/FAQ @@ -44,6 +44,12 @@ A: Such a functionality isn't needed on a properly configured system. All hardware in memory, then use something else to manage your modules (scripts, modules.conf, etc.) This is not a task for udev. +Q: But I love that feature of devfs, please? +A: The devfs approach caused a lot of spurious modprobe attempts as + programs probed to see if devices were present or not. Every probe + attempt created a process to run modprobe, almost all of which were + spurious. + Q: I really like the devfs naming scheme, will udev do that? A: Yes, udev can create /dev nodes using the devfs naming policy. A configuration file needs to be created to map the kernel default names