RFD: Rework/extending functionality of mdev

[Didier Kryn]

     There are interesting technical points in this discussion, but it 
turns out to be mostly about philosophy and frustration.

     Harald, there are two points in your arguments which make no sense 
to me:

Le 12/03/2015 17:31, Harald Becker a écrit :
> ... because there are people, wo dislike using netlink and want use 
> the kernel hotplug helper mechanism. That's it. Peoples preferences 
> are different. Opt out the functions you dislike in BB config. 

     Hotplug is KISS, it is stupid, maybe, but it is so simple that you 
can probably do the job with a script. The same serialization you 
propose to implement in user space by the mean of several processes, a 
named pipe and still the fork bomb, has been implemented in the kernel 
without the fork bomb: it is called netlink.

     These people you are talking of, who would like to see hotplug 
serialized but do not want netlink, do they really exist? This set of 
people is most likely the empty set. In case these really exist, then 
they must be idiots, and then, well, should Busybox support idiocy?

Le 11/03/2015 19:02, Harald Becker a écrit :
> It is neither a knowledge nor any technical problem, it is preference:
> I want to have *one* statical binary in the minimal system, and being
> able to run a full system setup with this (system) binary (or call it
> tool set).

     I agree it's fun to have all tools in one static binary. But I dont 
see any serious reason to make it an absolute condition. You speak of 
*preference*, but this very one looks pretty futile. I don't see the 
problem with having even a dozen applications, all static, why not, I'm 
also a fan of static linking.

     Best regards.

     Didier