On Wed, 3 Aug 2011 01:38:45 +0200, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 00:01, Matthew Burgess > <matthew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> So, Udev-173 added a log message warning us that 'udevadm trigger >> --type=failed' is deprecated, which over in LFS we use in a 'udev_retry' >> bootscript in an attempt to retry failed events, for example those > caused by >> slow device initialization. > > What is a 'slow' device? RUN+= needs to be explicitly marked to 'fail' > events. What kind of rules do you exactly have there that tells RUN+= > to mark it as failed if needed? Good question. We try to stick as closely as possible to upstream's rules. We only create 2 rules files in addition to those installed by your releases which are: --- Begin 55-lfs.rules --- # /etc/udev/rules.d/55-lfs.rules: Rule definitions for LFS. # Core kernel devices # This causes the system clock to be set as soon as /dev/rtc becomes available. SUBSYSTEM=="rtc", ACTION=="add", MODE="0644", RUN+="/etc/rc.d/init.d/setclock start" KERNEL=="rtc", ACTION=="add", MODE="0644", RUN+="/etc/rc.d/init.d/setclock start" # Comms devices KERNEL=="ippp[0-9]*", GROUP="dialout" KERNEL=="isdn[0-9]*", GROUP="dialout" KERNEL=="isdnctrl[0-9]*", GROUP="dialout" KERNEL=="dcbri[0-9]*", GROUP="dialout" --- End 55-lfs.rules --- and 70-persistent-net.rules which is generated by following the instructions at http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter07/network.html. I have a suspicion that the rtc rule could fail if a user had /var as a separate partition, and /dev/rtc was created before the /var partition had been mounted (the setclock script calls out to hwclock, which requires /var/lib/hwclock/adjtime). Our initscripts in question are S10udev and S40mountfs, so I guess this is theoretically possible. Do you agree with the above analysis, and if so what do I need to do to fix this? I could just remove the RUN+= from the rtc rule, and have setclock be an initscript that starts after S40mountfs. I think we used to have things configured this way, but moved to the RUN+= method a while ago. Aside from that issue, is there a way to ask udev to print all failed events, as opposed to retrying them. As LFS is a fairly minimal system, I'm concerned that users may end up creating or installing bootscripts that have similar issues, so having a way of printing failed events would be a useful first step in diagnosing their issues. Thanks, Matt. -- 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
