From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Horsley Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:05:31 +0000 Subject: Re: What does last_rule really mean? Message-Id: <20091025150531.65b407b3@zooty> List-Id: References: <102520090145.1929.4AE3ADC2000828BF0000078922243322829B0A02D29B9B0EBF970A049C9D0108D203019B@att.net> In-Reply-To: <102520090145.1929.4AE3ADC2000828BF0000078922243322829B0A02D29B9B0EBF970A049C9D0108D203019B@att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:51:03 +0900 Kay Sievers wrote: > On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:20, David Zeuthen wrote: > > > (For the record, the last_rule directive in udev is really dangerous as > > it may have unintended consequences hiding devices like this from > > system-level software depending on it - last time I talked to Kay he > > mentioned that it might be nice to remove it since there's really no > > reason to hand out rope like that.) > > Yeah, let's remove that thing. It causes too much trouble and is just > an indication that something needs to be fixed differently. Or re-define it sensibly. One of the potential definitions I thought about when trying to decide what it might actually mean was: "Save this rule up and process it at the end of all the other rules". Then it just becomes a way to get your rule to the end without having to worry about some distro coming along and trumping your 99-zzz.rules file with a 99-~~~.rules file :-).