From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Rajnoha Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:40:30 -0000 Subject: [PATCH] udev: move notify rule In-Reply-To: <20091104112655.GB17814@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org> References: <20091030145125.GA21583@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org> <4AEB0C50.7090500@redhat.com> <20091104112655.GB17814@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org> Message-ID: <4AF1761D.9030305@redhat.com> List-Id: To: lvm-devel@redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 11/04/2009 12:26 PM, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 04:54:56PM +0100, Peter Rajnoha wrote: >> On 10/30/2009 03:51 PM, Bastian Blank wrote: >>> Move notify rule into the first rules file. The RUN commands is executed >>> after everything is finished, so it makes no difference if it is set >>> early or late. >> yes, this is true with respect to all the other udev processing. But the point of having >> it as 95-dm.rules is that there could be some other RUN+="..." line in the other rules. > > And there are no constraints about the order of this executions. If you > know more then the udev docu, fix it there. OK, maybe I should assure myself with udev guys so we're 100% sure (it's not so essential now, but it could be in the future - there are more plans for udev usage with respect to LVM, so I need to be sure about this ordering, that's true...). But this is the behaviour I observed when I tested this. But you're right, I'll make sure... Peter