On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:17:52 -0700, "Dan Nicholson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/26/07, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The 2.6.22 kernel (maybe 2.6.21 too, didn't check) has an option
>> CONFIG_USB_DEVICE_CLASS that's marked as deprecated. The help text
>> states that it is unnecessary if the following udev rule is used:
>>
>> SUBSYSTEM=="usb", ACTION=="add", ENV{DEVTYPE}=="usb_device", \
>> NAME="bus/usb/$env{BUSNUM}/$env{DEVNUM}"
>>
>> I checked the SuSE rules in udev-111, and this is in addition to the
>> existing usb_device rule:
>>
>> SUBSYSTEM=="usb_device", PROGRAM="/bin/sh -c 'X=%k; X=$${X#usbdev};
>> B=$${X%%%%.*} D=$${X#*.}; echo bus/usb/$$B/$$D'", NAME="%c"
>>
>> Does anyone have a problem if I add that to our rules?
>
> Actually, it seems that they're the same rule, but the kernel no
> longer supplies the usb_device subsystem is removed in 2.6.22. Here's
> a relevant bug:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248916#c10
>
> So, the new rule can replace the old one depending on whether
> CONFIG_USB_DEVICE_CLASS is set. I think both rules should be there so
> that our rules stay compatible whether this setting is Y or N. Also,
> leaving the older rule there means you get /dev/bus/usb nodes if you
> run an older kernel.
I'm not sure we need both rules. If CONFIG_USB_DEVICE_CLASS=n, the new rule
will take effect. If CONFIG_USB_DEVICE_CLASS=y, whichever of the NAME= rules
is hit first will take effect, if my understanding of Udev rule evaluation is
correct. Therefore, if the new rule is placed above the existing one, the
existing one then becomes entirely redundant.
I understand that someone running an older kernel would need the old rule, but
then we don't officially support running older versions of any of our packages
(as it's not in an official, tested release) let alone something as critical as
the kernel.
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
