On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 05:14:16AM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 01:10:43PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 02:34:26PM -0600, Clay Haapala wrote:
> > > On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Chris Friesen spake thusly:
> > > >
> > > > Maybe for ones with a matching rule, you could print something like:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Is the act of printing/syslogging a rule in an of itself?
> >
> > No, as currently the only way stuff ends up in the syslog is if
> > DEBUG=true is used on the build line.
> >
> > But it's sounding like we might want to change that... :)
>
> How about this in the syslog after connect/disconnect?
>
> Jan 15 05:07:45 pim udev[28007]: configured rule in '/etc/udev/udev.rules' at line 17 applied, 'video*' becomes 'video/webcam%n'
> Jan 15 05:07:45 pim udev[28007]: creating device node '/udev/video/webcam0'
> Jan 15 05:07:47 pim udev[28015]: removing device node '/udev/video/webcam0'
Here is a slightly better version. I've created a logging.h file and
moved the debug macros from udev.h in there.
If you type:
'make' - you will get a binary that prints one or two lines to syslog
if a device node is created or deleted
'make LOG=false' - you get a binary that prints asolutely nothing
'make DEBUG=true' - the same as today, it will print all debug lines
> Hi,
> as promised yesterday, here is a patch that drops the explicit methods
> given in the udev config and implement only one type of rule.
>
> A rule now consists only of a number of keys to match. All known keys
> are valid in any combination. The former configs should work with a few
> changes:
>
> o the "<METHOD>, " at the beginning of the line should be removed
>
> o the result of the externel program is matched with RESULT= instead if ID=
> the PROGRAM= key is only valid if the program exits with zero
> (just exit with nozero in a script if the rule should not match)
>
> o rules are processed in order they appear in the file, no priority
>
> o if NAME="" is given, udev is instructed to ignore this device,
> no node will be created
>
>
> EXAMPLE:
>
> # combined BUS, SYSFS and KERNEL
> BUS="usb", KERNEL="video*", SYSFS_model="Creative Labs WebCam*", NAME="test/webcam%n"
>
> # exec script only for the first ide drive (hda), all other will be skipped
> BUS="ide", KERNEL="hda*", PROGRAM="/home/kay/src/udev.kay/extras/ide-devfs.sh %k %b %n", RESULT="hd*", NAME="%1c", SYMLINK="%2c %3c"
>
>
> The udev-test.pl and test.block works fine here.
> Please adapt your config and give it a try.
>
Here is a slightly better version of the patch.
After a conversation with Patrick, we are now able to execute the PROGRAM
and also match in all following rules with the RESULT value from this exec.
EXAMPLE:
We have 7 rules with RESULT and 2 with PROGRAM.
Only the 5th rule matches with the callout result from the exec in the 4th rule.
RULES:
PROGRAM="/bin/echo abc", RESULT="no_match", NAME="web-no-2"
KERNEL="video*", RESULT="123", NAME="web-no-3"
KERNEL="video*", RESULT="123", NAME="web-no-4"
PROGRAM="/bin/echo 123", RESULT="no_match", NAME="web-no-5"
KERNEL="video*", RESULT="123", NAME="web-yes"
RESULT:
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: namedev_name_device: process rule
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: namedev_name_device: check PROGRAM
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: execute_program: executing '/bin/echo abc'
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: execute_program: result is 'abc'
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: namedev_name_device: PROGRAM returned successful
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: namedev_name_device: check for RESULT dev->result='no_match', udev->program_result='abc'
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: namedev_name_device: RESULT is not matching
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: namedev_name_device: process rule
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: namedev_name_device: check for KERNEL dev->kernel='video*' class_dev->name='video0'
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: namedev_name_device: KERNEL matches
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: namedev_name_device: check for RESULT dev->result='123', udev->program_result='abc'
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: namedev_name_device: RESULT is not matching
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: namedev_name_device: process rule
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: namedev_name_device: check for KERNEL dev->kernel='video*' class_dev->name='video0'
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: namedev_name_device: KERNEL matches
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: namedev_name_device: check for RESULT dev->result='123', udev->program_result='abc'
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: namedev_name_device: RESULT is not matching
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: namedev_name_device: process rule
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: namedev_name_device: check PROGRAM
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: execute_program: executing '/bin/echo 123'
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: execute_program: result is '123'
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: namedev_name_device: PROGRAM returned successful
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: namedev_name_device: check for RESULT dev->result='no_match', udev->program_result='123'
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: namedev_name_device: RESULT is not matching
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: namedev_name_device: process rule
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: namedev_name_device: check for KERNEL dev->kernel='video*' class_dev->name='video0'
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: namedev_name_device: KERNEL matches
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: namedev_name_device: check for RESULT dev->result='123', udev->program_result='123'
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: namedev_name_device: RESULT matches
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: namedev_name_device: found matching rule, 'video*' becomes ''
Jan 11 23:36:52 pim udev[26050]: namedev_name_device: name, 'web-yes' is going to have owner='', group='', mode = 0600
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 11:24:53AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > There should be a possibility to tell udev not to create a device node.
> >
> > device-mapper: Usually set up by libdevmapper (or EVMS tools) which
> > creates the device node on its own under /dev/mapper/<name>.
> >
> > With udev a second device is created named /dev/dm-<minor> which is not
> > really needed.
>
> Good point. Ok, I'll agree with you. Care to make up a patch for this
> kind of feature?
Yes, I can try.
There was no way to tell not to do anything so I created one. Errors
are signalled via negative return values, so I thought that a positive,
non-zero one could mean to ignore the device. I don't like it but
perhaps you have a better solution.
o change the parsing to get a key from the rule and sort it
into our list of known keys instead of expecting a special order
o the key to match a sysfs file must be prependend by 'SYSFS_' now
to match with the new parsing.
(The config must be changed, but it's a bit more descriptive too.)
o put names of fields in define's, like the name of the methods
o update all tests and the man page
> > here is a experimental symlink creation patch - for discussion,
> > in which direction we should go.
> > It is possible now to define SYMLINK= after the NAME= in udev.rules.
> > The link is relative to the node, but the path is not optimized now
> > if the node and the link are in the same nested directory.
> > Only one link is supported, cause i need to sleep now :)
> >
> > 06-simple-symlink-creation.diff
> > simple symlink creation
> > reorganized udev-remove to have access to the symlink field
> > subdir creation/removal are functions now
> > udev-test.pl tests for link creation/removal
Here is a new version with relative link target path optimization
an better tests in udev-test.pl:
LABEL, BUS="scsi", vendor="IBM-ESXS", NAME="1/2/a/b/node", SYMLINK="1/2/c/d/symlink"
Dec 7 06:48:34 pim udev[13789]: create_node: symlink 'udev-root/1/2/c/d/symlink' to node '1/2/a/b/node' requested
Dec 7 06:48:34 pim udev[13789]: create_path: created 'udev-root/1/2/c'
Dec 7 06:48:34 pim udev[13789]: create_path: created 'udev-root/1/2/c/d'
Dec 7 06:48:34 pim udev[13789]: create_node: symlink(../../a/b/node, udev-root/1/2/c/d/symlink)
the older udev.config file is now called udev.rules.
This allows us to better control configuration values, and move away from
the environment variables.
This patch adds a callout config type to udev, so external programs can be
called to get serial numbers or id's that are not available as a sysfs
attribute.
Here's an "idea" of what I had in mind for udevdb. Let me preface the
code with a few remarks:
1) I was expecting to write this udevdb for udev to keep track of
devices. I was planning an external package that depends upon udev
to provide an external API to the udevdb database. The calls for the
interface would be read only access. Not sure how you want to do
packaging, if having a separate package is ok or having it included
in udev.
2) I created it as it is because udev isn't a daemon. So, the open
database call doesn't take any parameters. My plan was to create a
udevdb_init function that took arguments for initializing the db
to start, where you could specify in memory only or a file location.
This can all be filled in.
3) I hacked the Makefile to get it to work. Not sure how you'd want
that in the future.
4) This assumes TDB has been installed elsewhere, you would need to
edit your Makefile and point it to the header and library locations.
How do you want to do TDB in udev? Do you want to just reference it
and make udev dependent on that package being installed. Or should
we do what samba does and include a limited tdb version in udev?
5) Again, I hacked udev into your existing code. In the future, I'd
probably make a function around the filling out the udevice before
calling the store command. Didn't know if you wanted to change
your add device function to use struct udevice rather than having
everything separate.
6) Not sure what we should include in the udevice structure that's stored
by udev. I made a stab at a first shot - we can add and remove of course,
this was a first pass. I've come to realize - with you including libsysfs
in udev, the "external" interface that references udevdb could make
use of getting information from through libsysfs from sysfs and doesn't
need to be in udevdb.
7) I could write a namedevdb for namedev's device management if you
wanted.
