On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 15:11 +0200, Florian Zumbiehl wrote: > > > 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? > POSIX. > > > > 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. > I don't know, you haven't given any detail of any problems you've encountered. Scott -- Scott James Remnant scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
