Letting mdev + devtmpfs play together?

[Floris Bos]

On 04/18/2015 06:42 PM, Laurent Bercot wrote:
> On 18/04/2015 18:00, Floris Bos wrote:
>> Simply letting devtmpfs instead of mdev handle the removal of the 
>> actual device node files wouldn't be an option?
>> I don't think I have a real need for sequentiality on any other 
>> operation.
>
>  I'm not sure whether devtmpfs handles device node removal itself.
> I'd need to test that.

It certainly does when you are using devtmpfs standalone without mdev.
Not sure if it still deletes them if the nodes have been recreated by 
mdev afterwards.
May have to remove the mknod() as well.

> In any case, the answer to your original question is no, you cannot
> configure mdev to run but not remove nodes. You can patch it, though:
> the relevant part of the code, which you may want to comment, is the
> following block:
>
>                 if (operation == OP_remove && major >= -1) {
>                         if (ENABLE_FEATURE_MDEV_RENAME && alias) {
>                                 if (aliaslink == '>') {
>                                         dbg1("unlink: %s", device_name);
>                                         unlink(device_name);
>                                 }
>                         }
>                         dbg1("unlink: %s", node_name);
>                         unlink(node_name);
>                 }
>

Thanks.
Would there be any interest by others in a patch that makes this a 
configurable option?

-- 
Yours sincerely,

Floris Bos