Hi, On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 01:56:17PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:05:22 -0500, Forest Bond wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 09:56:47AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > Hi Forest, > > > > > > On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:31:58 -0500, Forest Bond wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 05:11:48PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > > > give a try to the latest one: > > > > > http://dl.lm-sensors.org/lm-sensors/files/sensors-detect > > > > > > > > This seems to work fine. Thanks for the help. > > > > > > Without the extra patch? Hmm, then I don't know if I should apply it. > > > On the one hand, why change the code if it works... OTOH, there may be > > > cases where udev will still be too slow and the bug you've hit will > > > resurface again. > > > > I only tested once. I guess the race condition is more likely to fall the right > > way with the new script (based on your comments, I assume the race still > > exists). Would it be helpful if I tested a few more times? > > If you can, yes please. > > > The patch seemed small enough that I wouldn't think it would cause problems. > > Well, I just would appreciate if you (or others) could test it, to make > sure I didn't accidentally introduce a regression. I think I'll merge > it then. I finally got around to testing this. As I mentioned before, svn revision 5642 seems to solve my issue, but I see no regressions with your patch applied. I suspect the udev approach is less prone to races. Thanks, Forest -- Forest Bond http://www.alittletooquiet.net http://www.pytagsfs.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
