Re: advice needed for gentoo bug involving lvm2/udev

[William Hubbs <w.d.hubbs@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1763 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 04:10:13PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 03:09:34AM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 18:41, William Hubbs <w.d.hubbs@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > we have the following bug posted in gentoo's bugzilla:
> > >
> > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365227.
> > >
> > > The reporter is telling me that we should use --action=change instead of
> > > --action=add in the cold boot sequence when dev is devtmpfs. However,
> > > this doesn't seem to be the correct fix based on earlier discussions on
> > > this list.
> > >
> > > Does anyone else have any suggestions for fixing this? My thought is
> > > that the rules for lvm2 should be fixed. What does everyone else think?
> > 
> > --action=add is still the recommended and default way of doing coldplug.
> > 
> > It should only be done once after udevd is started though, and never
> > again. All later triggers should be change only.
> 
> The reporter is now saying that --action=add does not touch nodes that
> are already in the file system, so, for example, if you mount devtmpfs
> on /dev then call udevadm trigger --action=add, the permissions,
> ownership, etc, of nodes that already exist are not touched. So, he is
> suggesting that we add another udevadm trigger call with --action=change
> to the cold boot sequence.
> 
> Is this a bug in udev, or should we add this extra udevadm trigger call?

Hi Kay,

I am re-sending this in case you didn't get it before.

Basically, the reporter is now saying that the udevadm trigger
--action=add is correct, but that the coldplug sequence should include
udevadm trigger --action=change after the --action=add call.

Is this correct?

Thanks,

William


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]