On Feb 03, Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, you need to make sure, that cdrom_id and nothing else runs on _any_
> removable ide drive, just like the persistent disk rules are skipped.
This change to permissions.rules should fix it, even if I do not
understand why it worked for the othe
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:32:40PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:52:25AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Feb 01, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:08:42AM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > > > What does udevtest print on your box?
> > > Wit
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:52:25AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 01, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:08:42AM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > > What does udevtest print on your box?
> > With or without the block/removable rule in place? With or without the
>
On Feb 01, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:08:42AM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > What does udevtest print on your box?
> With or without the block/removable rule in place? With or without the
> CF card inserted?
With the rule and the card.
--
ciao,
Marco
sign
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:08:42AM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> What does udevtest print on your box?
With or without the block/removable rule in place? With or without the
CF card inserted?
Greetings
Marc
--
-
Marc Habe
> From: Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Re: Bug#350235: ide pcmcia problem
>
> found 350235 0.84-1
> thanks
>
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 a
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 09:31:21PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 01:51:39PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > Indeed... But maybe the recent changes in sysfs processing in udev broke
> > the rule. First, try removing the symlink to persistent.rules to verify
> > that it actually i
found 350235 0.84-1
thanks
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 01:51:39PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Indeed... But maybe the recent changes in sysfs processing in udev broke
> the rule. First, try removing the symlink to persistent.rules to verify
> that it actually is what is exposing the bug, then after y
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 01:51:39PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 28, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > However z20_persistent.rules seems to contain the relevant magic
> > already...?
> Indeed... But maybe the recent changes in sysfs processing in udev broke
> the rule. First,
On Jan 28, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However z20_persistent.rules seems to contain the relevant magic
> already...?
Indeed... But maybe the recent changes in sysfs processing in udev broke
the rule. First, try removing the symlink to persistent.rules to verify
that it actually is
Hi Marco,
It looks like this thread discusses my problem:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/11/4/287
However z20_persistent.rules seems to contain the relevant magic
already...?
It does seem like there was a change in the kernel recently that may be
relevant. It should have been a fix though rather tha
11 matches
Mail list logo
