Hi, > > > reading some of the source of udev, I noticed what I would suspect to be a > > [...] > > > > could someone possibly explain to me why there is that special codepath > > for cases where the device node does already exist, so I can write a > > patch that's not gonna break other functionality? > > > For example, when using devtmpfs; in which case the device nodes already > exist. > > Or when updating devices like /dev/null which are created before udevd > is started by the init script when not using devtmpfs. well, in those two cases always rename()ing the new node into place would work, too!? That would be a different strategy than what's in place at the moment, but it wouldn't need a special case!? > Or when racing with devmapper which creates /dev/mapper/foo devices at > basically the same time as udev. Seriously? How is a piece of code that does the existence check and the subsequent action depending on the result of that check non-atomically supposed to help avoid some race condition resulting from possible concurrent creation of a device node?! Florian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hotplug" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
