Re: removable media revalidation - udev vs. devfs or static /dev

From: Xavier Bestel (xavier.bestel_at_free.fr)
Date: 01/08/04

  • Next message: Ben Greear: "Re: Problem with 2.4.24 e1000 and keepalived" 
    To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Date:	Thu, 08 Jan 2004 09:00:41 +0100

    Le jeu 08/01/2004 à 04:43, Linus Torvalds a écrit :
    > On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Andries Brouwer wrote:
    > >
    > > I am even happy in a somewhat more general situation that you are.
    > > If the kernel autopartitions (and make recognition of new partitions
    > > hotplug events so that udev can create the device nodes), all is well.
    >
    > Yes. We _could_ do that, by just making a "we noticed the disk change" be
    > a hotplug event. However, I'm loath to do that, because some devices
    > literally don't even have an easily read disk change signal, so what they
    > do is
    >
    > - assume the disk _always_ changed on open
    > - do a quick IO to verify it
    >
    > and I'd be nervous about that kind of thing resulting in hotplug being
    > called constantly if somebody rude just has an endless loop of
    > "open()/close()".

    Theses devices are kind of broken anyway, aren't they ? I see no safe
    way of handling disk changes on them, except having a "I changed disk in
    this drive" button on the desktop and rely on the user's good behavior.
    Currently the kernel will may have a wrong idea of what's in the drive
    if it doesn't poll, and that may wreak havoc.

            Xav

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  • Next message: Ben Greear: "Re: Problem with 2.4.24 e1000 and keepalived"