| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Harald Hoyer discovered some incorrect behavior while debugging
problems with network interface renaming:
Udev events might be queued for devices which are renamed. A new
device registered the same time may claime the old name and create
a database entry for it. The current rename logic would move over
this databse entry to the wrong device.
|
|
These retry loops are required where create_path() could race with
delete_path(). But only the main udevd process writes to the queue,
so no races will happen here.
Signed-off-by: Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@tuffmail.co.uk>
|
|
Dangling symlinks in path components return -ENOENT. Do not retry
to create the file in a loop in such case.
|
|
On 8/29/09, Florian Zumbiehl <florz@florz.de> wrote:
> Could it happen that > util_create_path() and util_delete_path()
> do run in parallel for > the same directory? After all, util_create_path()
> does handle > the case where creation of the directory happens in parallel
> to it running, so it doesn't seem all that unlikely to me ...
|
|
|
|
With very deeply nested devices, We can not use a single file
name to carry an entire DEVPATH. Use <subsystem>:<sysname> as
the database filename, which should also simplify the handling
of devices moving around, as these values will not change but
still be unique.
For the name stack we use the <maj>:<min> now as the filename.
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 09:59:56AM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> The first is that udev grumbles during boot about "file name too long"
> like the following:
>
> Aug 17 06:49:58 megadeth udevd-event[20447]: unable to create db file
> '/dev/.udev/db/\x2fdevices\x2fpci0000:00\x2f0000:00:04.0\x2f0000:17:00.0\x2f0000:18:0a.0\x2f0000:1f:00.0\x2fhost11\x2fport-11:0\x2fexpander-11:0\x2fport-11:0:0\x2fexpander-11:1\x2fport-11:1:0\x2fexpander-11:2\x2fport-11:2:17\x2fexpander-11:3\x2fport-11:3:1\x2fend_device-11:3:1\x2fbsg\x2fend_device-11:3:1':
> File name too long
|
|
Obviously someone forgot something here or didn't use -ansi. Either way,
index is nowhere declared so I assume the current behaviour is to check
against the index() function coming from somewhere in the POSIX headers.
The comparison doesn't make sense then.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Mierswa <impulze@impulze.org>
|
|
udev/udev.pc
|
|
|
