On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 04:10:13PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 03:09:34AM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 18:41, William Hubbs <w.d.hubbs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > we have the following bug posted in gentoo's bugzilla: > > > > > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365227. > > > > > > The reporter is telling me that we should use --action=change instead of > > > --action=add in the cold boot sequence when dev is devtmpfs. However, > > > this doesn't seem to be the correct fix based on earlier discussions on > > > this list. > > > > > > Does anyone else have any suggestions for fixing this? My thought is > > > that the rules for lvm2 should be fixed. What does everyone else think? > > > > --action=add is still the recommended and default way of doing coldplug. > > > > It should only be done once after udevd is started though, and never > > again. All later triggers should be change only. > > The reporter is now saying that --action=add does not touch nodes that > are already in the file system, so, for example, if you mount devtmpfs > on /dev then call udevadm trigger --action=add, the permissions, > ownership, etc, of nodes that already exist are not touched. So, he is > suggesting that we add another udevadm trigger call with --action=change > to the cold boot sequence. > > Is this a bug in udev, or should we add this extra udevadm trigger call? Hi Kay, I am re-sending this in case you didn't get it before. Basically, the reporter is now saying that the udevadm trigger --action=add is correct, but that the coldplug sequence should include udevadm trigger --action=change after the --action=add call. Is this correct? Thanks, William
Attachment:
pgpLgraIAAGt4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
