Udev

alex1969 · 2005-09-14 17:22:07

Is Udev a daemon or not?

Because it isn't in the line of daemons of /etc/rc.conf!!!!

lucke · 2005-09-14 17:59:56

It actually is a daemon, however it isn't started through rc.conf. It is started through rc.sysinit, as one of the first things executed by initscripts.

alex1969 · 2005-09-14 20:13:35

But wy it started throught rc.sysinit and not throught rc.conf?

P.S. What are and where are this initscripts?

Euphoric Nightmare · 2005-09-14 20:35:02

alex1969 wrote:

But wy it started throught rc.sysinit and not throught rc.conf?
P.S. What are and where are this initscripts?

Probably so idiots like me don't screw it up...just an idea

lucke · 2005-09-14 20:40:02

It's not strictly a daemon in Arch's sense, i.e. it doesn't have a starting script in /etc/rc.d. It is started in the early phase of the booting process, because it's a basis of the system, other things depend on it (I don't know how to put it precisely). And it isn't possible to disable it, else your system wouldn't work (at least now that devfs is gone) :-P

Initscripts is all that stuff responsible for booting up the system. After the kernel is loaded, they take care of things. Basically those are all those rc.* files in /etc.

Snowman · 2005-09-14 20:46:49

pacman -Ql initscripts
will list the initscripts files.

The reason udev is started first is that the deamons of rc.conf are started after the filsystems are mounted. To mount the filsystems, you need to have the devices in /dev. To create the devices, you need to start udev. That's why udev is started first. Without udev your system won't work. I hope my reasoning is clear.

EDIT: lucke was quicker to post.

phrakture · 2005-09-14 21:08:09

alex1969 wrote:

But wy it started throught rc.sysinit and not throught rc.conf?

Because it should *NOT* be under the control of the user. You should never have the option to "turn off" udev. Since 2.6.13 (?) you are required to have udev in order for your system to run.

stavrosg · 2005-09-14 21:17:04

phrakture wrote:

alex1969 wrote:
But wy it started throught rc.sysinit and not throught rc.conf?
Because it should *NOT* be under the control of the user. You should never have the option to "turn off" udev. Since 2.6.13 (?) you are required to have udev in order for your system to run.

In theory, you can always have a static /dev . But it sucks.
And there is always the ndevfs patch from Greg KH, if someone is so addicted to devfs.

phrakture · 2005-09-14 21:22:40

stavrosg wrote:

phrakture wrote:
alex1969 wrote:
But wy it started throught rc.sysinit and not throught rc.conf?
Because it should *NOT* be under the control of the user. You should never have the option to "turn off" udev. Since 2.6.13 (?) you are required to have udev in order for your system to run.
In theory, you can always have a static /dev . But it sucks.
And there is always the ndevfs patch from Greg KH, if someone is so addicted to devfs.

Right, but I'm working under the assumption that, if one does not understand the point of udev or why it is started in some fashion, then they have no use for devfs/static dev. You are correct though, that you do not need to use udev, but this specific case is a bit different.

alex1969 · 2005-09-15 06:38:09

Thanks for all your reply!!

Arch Linux

#1 2005-09-14 17:22:07

Udev

#2 2005-09-14 17:59:56

Re: Udev

#3 2005-09-14 20:13:35

Re: Udev

#4 2005-09-14 20:35:02

Re: Udev

#5 2005-09-14 20:40:02

Re: Udev

#6 2005-09-14 20:46:49

Re: Udev

#7 2005-09-14 21:08:09

Re: Udev

#8 2005-09-14 21:17:04

Re: Udev

#9 2005-09-14 21:22:40

Re: Udev

#10 2005-09-15 06:38:09

Re: Udev

Board footer