From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott James Remnant Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 10:29:45 +0000 Subject: Re: Revisiting threaded udevd Message-Id: <1230373785.7026.5.camel@quest> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-yONiRzCVUTHzA665FL4c" List-Id: References: <494F7942.6060702@tuffmail.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <494F7942.6060702@tuffmail.co.uk> To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org --=-yONiRzCVUTHzA665FL4c Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2008-12-25 at 17:36 +0000, Alan Jenkins wrote: > Odd. I have started and I've not seen anything like this. Maybe > you're=20 > doing something wrong. I don't have time to look at or try your patch=20 > today :-). >=20 > libudev doesn't implement any locking itself. But AFAICS it's safe to=20 > use *different* libudev objects such as udev_devices from different=20 > threads. You generally don't need to modify the udev context object, so=20 > it seemed safe to share the context between threads (and just make sure=20 > to only call udev_ref/unref from a single thread). >=20 I think I got it right, maybe I missed something that was in your original patch? The only vaguely unusual thing I was doing was running udevd in an existing booted system, and running udevadm trigger on that - so there would already have been udevdb entries for everything. Scott --=20 Scott James Remnant scott@canonical.com --=-yONiRzCVUTHzA665FL4c Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAklWA5kACgkQSnQiFMl4yK52/gCdHMrLRbh0ktaE+IrIowLmqDrm 4o0AniCnuyY5U5Sny4cAR/HbrKfscnAG =YM4w -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-yONiRzCVUTHzA665FL4c--