Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 13:31:55 -0700 From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net> To: JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> Cc: Duane Whitty <duane@greenmeadow.ca>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: devfs.conf and pass0 Message-ID: <20060413203155.5277A45046@ptavv.es.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 13 Apr 2006 14:28:14 -0300." <200604131428.14637.joao@matik.com.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From: JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> > Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 14:28:14 -0300 > Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org > > On Thursday 13 April 2006 12:24, Fabian Keil wrote: > > JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> wrote: > > > On Thursday 13 April 2006 09:28, Fabian Keil wrote: > > > > JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> wrote: > > > > > seems on recent releng_6 (RC1) the permissions set to pass0 > > > > > within /etc/devfs.conf are not applied anymore and need to be set > > > > > manual in order getting acd0 available to users > > > > > > seems my cd0 and pass0 are still not there when /etc/rc.d/devfs runs > > I wrote a=20 > > sleep 5 > > into it and know it works as supposed on existing pass0.=20 > > Anyway this is new, I had not any problem until last week with this. I think I see the problem (and a possible solution). Since atapicam was re-written a while back, the creation of the cd and pass devices is NOT synchronous any longer. If you watch, the probe messages for cd devices is now after the mounting of root and the start of rc.local. I bet that on some systems, it's taking long enough that devfs has already been started, so devfs.conf has done its thing and did not have a cd0 or pass0 to chmod. If you make the chmods in devfs.rules, this will not be a problem as they are effective any time a new device is created in /dev. Unfortunately, this does not fix my problem of wanting to create symlinks for /dev/cdrom and /dev/dvd as only devfs.conf seems to be able to do this. I guess I should look at adding this to devfs sometime and submit a PR asking for the improvement. If this was done, devfs.conf could be deprecated and devfs.rules would be the only file that dealt with this stuff. Having two files that ALMOST do the same thing is messy and can be a bit of a POLA issue for those new to devfs. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060413203155.5277A45046>