From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kay Sievers Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:20:59 +0000 Subject: Re: [GIT] Experimental threaded udev Message-Id: List-Id: References: <4A1EA138.10400@tuffmail.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4A1EA138.10400@tuffmail.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 22:46, Alan Jenkins wrote: > I think the patch breaks the settle control message.  It now sends the > signal back to udevadm immediately, instead of postponing it until after > handle_inotify(), which was apparently the point. > Perhaps it would be simplest to reorder the main loop so that handle_ctrl() > comes after handle_inotify().  If I'm right, it could benefit from a comment > pointing out that this order is significant and should be preserved. Yeah, that sounds good. Thanks! > That said, I don't completely understand the settle control message.  I > don't get why udevadm-settle only sends it once at the start, instead of > incorporating it as part of the delay loop. I think, it's only needed to cover the delayed wakeup of udevd. When no event is pending after close() of a device file, there is nothing we can miss after that point, I think. Thanks, Kay