Re: [ANNOUNCE] udev 016 release

Kay Sievers
2004-02-04T00:00:51Z

On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 03:13:41PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 01:03:33AM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 23:28, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 22:13, Greg KH wrote:
> > >
> > > Except if I miss something major, udevsend and udevd still do not
> > > work:
> > >
> >
> > Skip that, it does work if SEQNUM is set :P
> >
> > Anyhow, is it _really_ needed for SEQNUM to be set? What about
> > the attached patch?
>
> Yes it is necessary, as that is what the kernel spits out. It's also
> the whole reason we need udevd :)
>
> If you don't want to give a SEQNUM, just call udev directly.

Oh, never use this udevsend in any script. It expects the SEQNUM from
the kernel, not a random one from you! You will always get timeouts
everytime you use your own SEQNUM, like the timeout after the start of udevd.

If you really need udevsend, I can't imagine for what case, we need to
add some logic to it, to bypass the event ordering and waiting to put
the event straight to the exec_queue.

> > 2) events gets missing. If you for example use udevsend in the
> > initscript that populate /dev (/udev), the amount of nodes/links
> > created is off with about 10-50 (once about 250) entries.

Your are calling udevsend with your script?

> Hm, that's not good. I'll go test that and see what's happening.

thanks,
Kay