On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 08:27:44PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Apr 18, Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe <mario.ho...@tu-ilmenau.de> wrote: > > KERNEL=="audio", NAME="%k0", SYMLINK+="%k" > Nowadays this is considered bad, accordingly to the upstream maintainer > you should not change the kernel name of a device.
$ grep -rl 'NAME=[^=]' /etc/udev/rules.d /lib/udev/rules.d /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules /etc/udev/rules.d/00-local.rules /lib/udev/rules.d/75-persistent-net-generator.rules /lib/udev/rules.d/55-dm.rules /lib/udev/rules.d/50-udev-default.rules Apart from my own rules this seems to be quite a common behaviour. > I expect that if you swap NAME and SYMLINK it would work again. Yes, but this is a) not what I want and b) not what this bug is about :) See below for further arguments regarding a). > I uploaded to http://www.bofh.it/~md/debian/ a *TOTALLY UNTESTED* > package of a current GIT snapshot: there have been some upstream changes > related to this No change regarding this issue. The symlink is still removed shortly after being created. diff udev-146~udev-event.c udev-152~git~udev-event.c + /* remove kernel-created node, if needed */ + if (udev_device_get_knodename(dev) != NULL && strcmp(event->name, udev_device_get_knodename(dev)) != 0) { + struct stat stats; + char filename[UTIL_PATH_SIZE]; + + util_strscpyl(filename, sizeof(filename), udev_get_dev_path(event->udev), "/", udev_device_get_knodename(dev), NULL); + if (stat(filename, &stats) == 0 && stats.st_rdev == udev_device_get_devnum(dev)) { + info(event->udev, "remove kernel created node '%s'\n", udev_device_get_knodename(dev)); + util_unlink_secure(event->udev, filename); + util_delete_path(event->udev, filename); + } + } Probably, using lstat() instead of stat() here would fix this specific problem, but I'm not sure if this is (or should be) really the right way to fix this. > but I am not even sure that this would be accepted as a > bug. Well, I think moving device nodes forth and back in the /dev tree is quite common behaviour - let it be users or applications who like to group device nodes in subdirectories (devfs-style, for example), let it be device-mapper (lvm, dmsetup, cryptsetup) who likes to rename device nodes to more verbose names, let it be network devices which fortunately or unfortunately have no device-node representation (yet), let it be something else. Replacing the original device node with a symlink is then just a usual consequence because some applications appear to depend on specific names (whether this makes sense or not). > > Btw. from what I have seen in the changelogs, I second Bastians > > assumption about the reason for the missing symlinks. > I think I missed it, what would that be? Hmmmm, sorry my fault. I somehow remember about an assumption that the removed symlinks had to do with some reorganized/simplified node handling. I thought Bastian did assume this originally but this doesn't seem to be the case. regards Mario -- Programmieren in C++ haelt die grauen Zellen am Leben. Es schaerft alle fuenf Sinne: den Schwachsinn, den Bloedsinn, den Wahnsinn, den Unsinn und den Stumpfsinn. [Holger Veit in doc]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
