On Nov 17 18:53, Christian Franke wrote: > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Nov 17 17:45, Christian Franke wrote: > > > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > > On Nov 17 15:39, Christian Franke wrote: > > > > > The last two /dev/disk subdirectories :-) > > > > > > > > > > Note a minor difference: On Linux, empty /dev/disk subdirectories > > > > > apparently > > > > > never appear. A subdirectory is not listed in /dev/disk if it would be > > > > > empty. Not worth the effort to emulate. > > > > Agreed. This is really great. I just pushed your patch. > > > > > > > > However, there's something strange in terms of by-label: > > > > > > > > I have two partitions with labels: > > > > > > > > $ ls -l /dev/disk/by-label > > > > total 0 > > > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 corinna vinschen 0 Nov 17 17:18 blub -> ../../sda3 > > > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 corinna vinschen 0 Nov 17 17:18 blub2 -> ../../sdb2 > > > > $ > > > > > > > > Now I change the label of sdb2 to the same "blub" string as on sda3: > > > > > > > > $ ls -l /dev/disk/by-label > > > > total 0 > > > > $ > > > > > > > > I'd expected to see only one, due to the name collision, but en empty > > > > dir is a bit surprising... And it may occur more often than not, given > > > > that the default label "New_Volume" probably won't get changed very > > > > often. > > > > > > > This is intentional and inherited from the very first patch, see the loop > > > behind qsort(). If a range of identical names appear, all these entries > > > are > > > removed. If some "random" entry would be kept, it might no longer be the > > > persistent link the user expects. We could possibly add some hash like > > > done > > > for by-id or append a number in such cases later. Need some more time to > > > thing about it.... > > I see. Admittedly, I don't know how Linux handles this either. > > A quick test on Debian 12 with by-label suggests that the last duplicate > wins. Also not very sophisticated :-)
Given this is all controlled by rather simple udev rules, see /usr/lib/udev/rules.d/60-persistent-storage.rules, that's not really surprising. > IIRC in the past I've seen in another of these directories (by-id?) that > '#N' was appended if duplicates occur. I don't see anything like that in 60-persistent-storage.rules, though. It has been removed at one point, it seems. > > > I will sent a patch for the new-features doc soon. > > Attached. Thanks, pushed. Corinna