From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jaroslav Kysela Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] alsactl: Store lockfile in /tmp Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 11:23:40 +0200 Message-ID: <5369FB9C.2010602@perex.cz> References: <1399404739-1007-1-git-send-email-julian@jusst.de> <5369F3B7.60105@jusst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail1.perex.cz (mail1.perex.cz [77.48.224.245]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AAC12652CC for ; Wed, 7 May 2014 11:23:40 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <5369F3B7.60105@jusst.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Julian Scheel , Takashi Iwai Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org Date 7.5.2014 10:49, Julian Scheel wrote: > Am 07.05.2014 09:19, schrieb Takashi Iwai: >> At Tue, 6 May 2014 21:32:19 +0200, >> Julian Scheel wrote: >>> >>> It can not be generally assumed that the directories in which asound.state >>> resides are writable. Instead using /tmp as location for lock files seems more >>> reliable. >> >> The subject and changelog don't match with the actual change. >> Now it's /var/log instead of /tmp, right? > > Sorry for that. Must have been too late. I also didn't note that. I applied your v2 patch to the git repo - I forced update now. >> Besides that, it'd be better to allow a full path name for a lock file >> instead of a directory name. If you give a different file name via -f >> option, you have a high chance to conflict with the existing file in >> /var/lock. > > So, you'd prefer a --lock-file/-L option which can be used to set an > explicit lock file? I changed '-D' to '-O' option (file) and used '-L' option to select the "no-lock" behaviour for the global configuration file. Note that the locking is default only for the global file, other files are not lock protected. http://git.alsa-project.org/?p=alsa-utils.git;a=commitdiff;h=158a67f6f5058bec0ac27086a1c6206bfd2ff414 >> Furthermore, for solving *your* problem (restoring from read-only >> rootfs), an easier option would be allowing to restore the system >> default without locking. > > While this is true I think making the locking mechanism more robust is a > good thing anyway. Yup. Jaroslav -- Jaroslav Kysela Linux Kernel Sound Maintainer ALSA Project; Red Hat, Inc.