From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 22:21:03 +0000 Subject: Re: udevsend fallback Message-Id: <20040514222103.GD16180@kroah.com> List-Id: References: <20040511111641.GB12034@vrfy.org> In-Reply-To: <20040511111641.GB12034@vrfy.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 01:22:06PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 04:54:44PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 01:16:41PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote: > > > Hi, > > > the execution of udev depends on the proper fuction of udevd, the > > > serializing daemon. If we can't connect to udevd within a 20 second we > > > give up and the request to create a node is lost. Hope this never happens, > > > but a broken udevd may prevent udev from working. > > > > > > What do you think? Should we call the udev binary directly from udevsend > > > instead of discarding the event? This way we would create the node, regardless > > > of the state of udevd. It would be 20 seconds later and maybe not in the right > > > sequence order - but the node will propably be there. > > > > > > Does it sound sane? What do you think? > > > > That sounds like a good "failsafe" thing to do. > > Here we go: > > Add a fallback udev call to udevsend. If udev is unable to send the > event to udevd, we call the udevd binary instead of do nothing and exit. Applied, thanks. greg k-h ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: SourceForge.net Broadband Sign-up now for SourceForge Broadband and get the fastest 6.0/768 connection for only $19.95/mo for the first 3 months! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id%62&alloc_ida84&op=click _______________________________________________ Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net Linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel