On 10/20/2009 02:13 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote: >> I know, the solution with OPTIONS+="last_rule" would be much easier, >> since it >> ignores any rules further, but at least this way we can spot all the >> places where >> dm devices are touched by the rules and we can send a notice to those >> maintainers. >> Otherwise this would be hidden forever. > > Good point - but I still think that telling udev to leave the device > alone completely feels like the right thing to do. > ..ok, finally we kept the "last_rule" in the lvm/dm upstream. This is the safe way. Maybe later we can think of a solution where we will rely on the others so they will check the variables we set for them (if that's possible at all). But it would be too dangerous now, I have to admit. You can check the rules we have in the upstream - if you have any comments or hints, just feel free to write me back... Peter _______________________________________________ dm-crypt mailing list dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
