[arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev-118-5
Hi - added seperate default udev rules with some small modifications - added framebuffer_blacklist file I hope i didn't miss something on diffing the default rules with our last udev.rules file greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org
Am Montag, 10. März 2008 23:15:41 schrieb Tobias Powalowski:
- added seperate default udev rules with some small modifications - added framebuffer_blacklist file
I have still two "problems": 1) The blacklist does not work as expected. intelfb and nvidiafb is still loaded by udev (tested on two different machines) 2) In 51-arch.rules I have found the following: ### xorg resets those permissions, adjust your xorg.conf! KERNEL=="nvidia*", GROUP="video" Isn't this rule useless at all? Permissions are still crw-rw-rw- 1 root root 195, 0 11. Mär 01:08 /dev/nvidia0 crw-rw-rw- 1 root root 195, 255 11. Mär 01:08 /dev/nvidiactl Perhaps Something like this should be added to modprobe.conf or modporbe.d: options nvidia NVreg_DeviceFileUID=0 options nvidia NVreg_DeviceFileGID=91 options nvidia NVreg_DeviceFileMode=0660 Of course this should be done by the nvidia-utils package. -- archlinux.de
Am Dienstag, 11. März 2008 schrieb Pierre Schmitz:
Am Montag, 10. März 2008 23:15:41 schrieb Tobias Powalowski:
- added seperate default udev rules with some small modifications - added framebuffer_blacklist file
I have still two "problems":
1) The blacklist does not work as expected. intelfb and nvidiafb is still loaded by udev (tested on two different machines) you need the new module-init-tools package with include /etc/modprobe.d/ in modprobe.conf
2) In 51-arch.rules I have found the following:
### xorg resets those permissions, adjust your xorg.conf! KERNEL=="nvidia*", GROUP="video"
Isn't this rule useless at all? Permissions are still
crw-rw-rw- 1 root root 195, 0 11. Mär 01:08 /dev/nvidia0 crw-rw-rw- 1 root root 195, 255 11. Mär 01:08 /dev/nvidiactl
Perhaps Something like this should be added to modprobe.conf or modporbe.d:
options nvidia NVreg_DeviceFileUID=0 options nvidia NVreg_DeviceFileGID=91 options nvidia NVreg_DeviceFileMode=0660
Of course this should be done by the nvidia-utils package.
it depends if you run xorg or not. xorg resets this permissions. greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org
Am Dienstag, 11. März 2008 07:16:51 schrieb Tobias Powalowski:
The blacklist does not work as expected. intelfb and nvidiafb is still
loaded by udev (tested on two different machines)
you need the new module-init-tools package with include /etc/modprobe.d/ in modprobe.conf
This does work. However: there is no new modules-init-tools package :-) -- archlinux.de
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:59 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Tobias Powalowski schrieb:
- added framebuffer_blacklist file
I thought we wanted to do that with udev rule files by blacklisting modaliases. Did I miss something?
If by "we" you mean that you mentioned it to me over jabber, then sure. But no one ever brought it up anywhere else. As far as I know you mentioned it to me, I mentioned it to tpowa, and it basically got lost in the shuffle. That's why I always ask people to "please bring this up on the ML" when you send me things over jabber. On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:53 AM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> wrote:
Am Dienstag, 11. März 2008 07:16:51 schrieb Tobias Powalowski:
The blacklist does not work as expected. intelfb and nvidiafb is still
loaded by udev (tested on two different machines)
you need the new module-init-tools package with include /etc/modprobe.d/ in modprobe.conf
This does work. However: there is no new modules-init-tools package :-)
Yeah, I got busy last night. The good news is, though, I convinced the m-i-t maintainer to add this functionality by default. So woohoo, when 3.3 is released we can get rid of this line (it'll be added tonight).
Aaron Griffin schrieb:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:59 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Tobias Powalowski schrieb:
- added framebuffer_blacklist file
I thought we wanted to do that with udev rule files by blacklisting modaliases. Did I miss something?
If by "we" you mean that you mentioned it to me over jabber, then sure. But no one ever brought it up anywhere else. As far as I know you mentioned it to me, I mentioned it to tpowa, and it basically got lost in the shuffle. That's why I always ask people to "please bring this up on the ML" when you send me things over jabber.
The idea was posted in a followup on the arch-general list by a user (you replied to it there). Sure, everyone agreed that it was a cool idea, but I must have forgot to state my approval on the mailing list. So let's bring it up now, shouldn't we rather use udev rules than a modprobe.d file?
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Aaron Griffin schrieb:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:59 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Tobias Powalowski schrieb:
- added framebuffer_blacklist file
I thought we wanted to do that with udev rule files by blacklisting modaliases. Did I miss something?
If by "we" you mean that you mentioned it to me over jabber, then sure. But no one ever brought it up anywhere else. As far as I know you mentioned it to me, I mentioned it to tpowa, and it basically got lost in the shuffle. That's why I always ask people to "please bring this up on the ML" when you send me things over jabber.
The idea was posted in a followup on the arch-general list by a user (you replied to it there). Sure, everyone agreed that it was a cool idea, but I must have forgot to state my approval on the mailing list.
Oh yeah, I just replied that it was a neat idea. I didn't really think of it one way or another.
So let's bring it up now, shouldn't we rather use udev rules than a modprobe.d file?
I'm really ambivalent about this. I think it's easier to autogenerate the modprobe.d file, and it doesn't need to be regenerated every time the modules change (in the off chance that new modaliases are added to the modules).
Am Dienstag, 11. März 2008 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Aaron Griffin schrieb:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:59 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Tobias Powalowski schrieb:
- added framebuffer_blacklist file
I thought we wanted to do that with udev rule files by blacklisting modaliases. Did I miss something?
If by "we" you mean that you mentioned it to me over jabber, then sure. But no one ever brought it up anywhere else. As far as I know you mentioned it to me, I mentioned it to tpowa, and it basically got lost in the shuffle. That's why I always ask people to "please bring this up on the ML" when you send me things over jabber.
The idea was posted in a followup on the arch-general list by a user (you replied to it there). Sure, everyone agreed that it was a cool idea, but I must have forgot to state my approval on the mailing list.
Oh yeah, I just replied that it was a neat idea. I didn't really think of it one way or another.
So let's bring it up now, shouldn't we rather use udev rules than a modprobe.d file?
I'm really ambivalent about this. I think it's easier to autogenerate the modprobe.d file, and it doesn't need to be regenerated every time the modules change (in the off chance that new modaliases are added to the modules). I agree with Aaron here, the module aliases may change more often then the module names.
greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org
Tobias Powalowski schrieb:
- added framebuffer_blacklist file
I thought we wanted to do that with udev rule files by blacklisting modaliases. Did I miss something?
Am Montag, 10. März 2008 23:15:41 schrieb Tobias Powalowski:
Hi - added seperate default udev rules with some small modifications - added framebuffer_blacklist file
I hope i didn't miss something on diffing the default rules with our last udev.rules file
greetings tpowa
this does work now; so here is my signoff (i686 and x86_64) -- archlinux.de
Am Mittwoch, 12. März 2008 schrieb Pierre Schmitz:
Am Montag, 10. März 2008 23:15:41 schrieb Tobias Powalowski:
Hi - added seperate default udev rules with some small modifications - added framebuffer_blacklist file
I hope i didn't miss something on diffing the default rules with our last udev.rules file
greetings tpowa
this does work now; so here is my signoff (i686 and x86_64)
Is it now ok to move in module-init-tools and udev 118-5 to core? -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Tobias Powalowski <t.powa@gmx.de> wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 12. März 2008 schrieb Pierre Schmitz:
Am Montag, 10. März 2008 23:15:41 schrieb Tobias Powalowski:
Hi - added seperate default udev rules with some small modifications - added framebuffer_blacklist file
I hope i didn't miss something on diffing the default rules with our last udev.rules file
greetings tpowa
this does work now; so here is my signoff (i686 and x86_64)
Is it now ok to move in module-init-tools and udev 118-5 to core?
Sign off x86_64, I don't know if my i686 box is up to date, so I don't want to sign off on it. Assuming you have all the signoffs, sounds good to me.
participants (4)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Pierre Schmitz
-
Thomas Bächler
-
Tobias Powalowski