Fwd: Re: film at 11: kernel update breaks udev.

[Harald Hoyer]

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://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20070723/e309963d/attachment-0002.bin