On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 21:51 +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Jeremy Linton <jlinton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2/3/2014 9:06 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > > > >> That's due to udev. Udev is getting events for each device it should create > >> a device node for. So for 'st' it'll get a series of events for 'stX', and > >> another series of events for 'nstX'. Udev will treat each of these events > >> separately, with distinct worker programs handling them. Each of those > >> workers run fully asynchronous and cannot access information from other > >> workers. > > > > So whats wrong with the simple solution? You throw the ones for st away, and > > create the st handles from the nst worker. > > This is not simple and not going to happen. Sibling devices in /sys > cannot have a relationship in udev, there are only parent/child > dependencies. > > Hannes, can't you just drop the weird auto-rewinding device matches > from the persistent rules, is that really useful today? Regardless of the outcome of these discussions about adding a rewind ioctl, we can't just kill the auto-rewind devices because that would be an ABI break (the consequence would be people's backup scripts would break and nothing annoys sysadmins more than failed backups). James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
