From: greg@kroah.com <greg@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:04:23 +0000 (-0800)
Subject: [PATCH] update the FAQ with info about bad modprobe events from the devfs scheme...
X-Git-Tag: 009~4
X-Git-Url: https://err.no/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=470e365d5338fbdcc8019d790c97ed1229de0196;p=systemd

[PATCH] update the FAQ with info about bad modprobe events from the devfs scheme...
---

diff --git a/FAQ b/FAQ
index d9aebde0..1f7ceb0d 100644
--- a/FAQ
+++ b/FAQ
@@ -44,6 +44,12 @@ A: Such a functionality isn't needed on a properly configured system. All
    hardware in memory, then use something else to manage your modules
    (scripts, modules.conf, etc.)  This is not a task for udev.
 
+Q: But I love that feature of devfs, please?
+A: The devfs approach caused a lot of spurious modprobe attempts as
+   programs probed to see if devices were present or not.  Every probe
+   attempt created a process to run modprobe, almost all of which were
+   spurious.
+
 Q: I really like the devfs naming scheme, will udev do that?
 A: Yes, udev can create /dev nodes using the devfs naming policy.  A
    configuration file needs to be created to map the kernel default names