[udev] why can't we add two rules with the same 'NAME=' ?

[udev] why can't we add two rules with the same 'NAME=' ?

[Kay Sievers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 255 bytes --]

Hi Greg,
why can't we add any valid config device to the list?
Since we support pattern matching it seems a bit confusing to the user.

Is it a leftover from the former permissions update code,
that is now in it's own function?

Do i miss something?

Kay

[-- Attachment #2: 04-add-any-valid-device.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1187 bytes --]

diff -Nru a/namedev.c b/namedev.c
--- a/namedev.c	Sat Dec 20 03:11:25 2003
+++ b/namedev.c	Sat Dec 20 03:11:25 2003
@@ -103,31 +103,10 @@
 
 int add_config_dev(struct config_device *new_dev)
 {
-	struct list_head *tmp;
 	struct config_device *tmp_dev;
 
-	/* update the values if we already have the device */
-	list_for_each(tmp, &config_device_list) {
-		struct config_device *dev = list_entry(tmp, struct config_device, node);
-		if (strcmp_pattern(new_dev->name, dev->name))
-			continue;
-		if (strncmp(dev->bus, new_dev->bus, sizeof(dev->name)))
-			continue;
-		copy_var(dev, new_dev, type);
-		copy_string(dev, new_dev, bus);
-		copy_string(dev, new_dev, sysfs_file);
-		copy_string(dev, new_dev, sysfs_value);
-		copy_string(dev, new_dev, id);
-		copy_string(dev, new_dev, place);
-		copy_string(dev, new_dev, kernel_name);
-		copy_string(dev, new_dev, exec_program);
-		copy_string(dev, new_dev, symlink);
-		return 0;
-	}
-
-	/* not found, add new structure to the device list */
 	tmp_dev = malloc(sizeof(*tmp_dev));
-	if (!tmp_dev)
+	if (tmp_dev == NULL)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 	memcpy(tmp_dev, new_dev, sizeof(*tmp_dev));
 	list_add_tail(&tmp_dev->node, &config_device_list);

Re: [udev] why can't we add two rules with the same 'NAME=' ?

[Greg KH]

On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 03:19:25AM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> why can't we add any valid config device to the list?
> Since we support pattern matching it seems a bit confusing to the user.
> 
> Is it a leftover from the former permissions update code,
> that is now in it's own function?

Yes, you are correct, it's a left over.  Thanks for the patch, applied.

greg k-h


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials.
Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills.  Sign up for IBM's
Free Linux Tutorials.  Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin.
Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id\x1278&alloc_id371&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