[systemd-devel] [PATCH] Drop the udev firmware loader

[Greg KH]

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:50:50PM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> 
> On 30/05/14 09:17, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
> > El vie 30 may 2014 01:41:37 CLT, Samuli Suominen escribió:
> >>
> >> On 30/05/14 04:55, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 03:40:52AM +0200, Zbigniew
> >>> Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 08:54:22PM -0400, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
> >>>>> As discussed ad-nauseum previously, it is the kernel's task
> >>>>> to load firmware, not udev's.
> >>>> I think this patch is a bad idea - it makes things harder for people
> >>>> who, for whatever reason, good or bad, run older kernels. At the same
> >>>> time, our maintenance burden is pretty much zero.
> >>> What kernel version are you thinking still needs this, that would ever
> >>> want to have a new version of systemd on it?
> >>
> >> We use systemd's udevd on old as Linux 2.6.32.61 succesfully, this patch
> >> would be very harmful
> >> to us (Gentoo)
> >
> > Really ? the minimum requirements are:
> >
> > REQUIREMENTS:
> >        Linux kernel >= 3.0
> >        Linux kernel >= 3.3 for loop device partition support features
> > with nspawn
> >        Linux kernel >= 3.8 for Smack support
> >
> > Also. libudev now uses name_to_handle_at() which appeared in 2.6.39 ...
> >
> >
> 
> You are right, this fhandle business is new, but we have 208 for kernels
> with no CONFIG_FHANDLE, and 212/213 for ones without,
> I have plans on keeping 208 for a long time in tree (it's on my TODO
> list to apply the patch that adds CONFIG_FHANDLE to our
> special kernel sources, but it's not done yet)
> We have embedded uses for eg. Genesis Efika MX (arm neon processor) with
> special kernel patches 2.6.32.* series, just to name
> one I personally use, and I know we have more of these uses, all ARM related

Then stick with those old systemd/udev versions for those kernels,
nothings wrong with that.

> But seriously, if at all possible, please keep the firmware thing for
> like this year in the code, it would be greately appericiated

Why would 6 months make any difference for removing it then vs. now?

greg k-h