> On Sunday, 07/29/2012 at 05:14 EDT, David Boyes > <dbo...@sinenomine.net> > wrote: > > In any case, I think Mike's question is a good one: if chccwdev needs > > a 'udevadm settle' to operate correctly, why isn't it doing it itself? > > It > seems > > like we should be able to rely on chccwdev operations being atomic. > > This seems like the wrong question. Rather, why is the creation of > /dev/xxxxx running asynchronously? I can appreciate that there are > asynchronous *user space* things that want to kick off when a device is > added, but creation of the /dev entry?
Well, if we punt to udev to manage the device creation, that's the nature of udev as designed -- to be async (to avoid some messy kernel-space stuff that tended to hang the machine if things didn't go right). I doubt that any of us will significantly influence the direction/design of udev. Chccwdev is completely under IBM control, though -- it'll be a lot easier to change that than udev. > Is this an issue on other platforms, > too? Probably, although I would bet no other platform does as many "hardware" device move/add/changes as 390x does, so it hasn't really been noticed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For more information on Linux on System z, visit http://wiki.linuxvm.org/
