Hi, > > 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!? > > > The rename() will fail. Because? > But you still need to apply any necessary > ownership and mode changes. Erm, yeah, of course!?! > > > 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?! > > > Read the code and find out. It works. Guess how I found out that it can not work. 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
