Cyril Brulebois <k...@debian.org> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-...@web.de> (11/11/2009):
>> Homework: Find out how
>>
>> I uploaded a 147-2 package which reverts the O_CLOEXEC change and
>> allows 2.6.26, let's see if it works.
>>
>> translates to
>>
>> I stop using inotify_init1().
>
> Easy:
> | --- a/udev/udev-watch.c
> | +++ b/udev/udev-watch.c
> | @@ -38,8 +38,10 @@ static int inotify_fd = -1;
> | */
> | int udev_watch_init(struct udev *udev)
> | {
> | - inotify_fd = inotify_init1(IN_CLOEXEC);
> | - if (inotify_fd < 0)
> | + inotify_fd = inotify_init();
> | + if (inotify_fd >= 0)
> | + util_set_fd_cloexec(inotify_fd);
> | + else
> | err(udev, "inotify_init failed: %m\n");
> | return inotify_fd;
> | }
>
> It *might* be that *CLOEXEC are concerned.
>
> Next time, try to RTFD? Oh wait, that was Julien's point already.
>
>> Thank you for presenting information in the most agressive way.
>
> While still being kind of⦠dead right.
>
> Mraw,
> KiBi.
That looks like a git diff. Why doesn't "apt-cache show udev" list it?
The git mentioned in the thread before is upstreams and that doesn't
contain the debian patch:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=blob;f=udev/udev-watch.c;h=d67083b51b3a67e3d14f9d2a7b6b4ef5113646a2;hb=HEAD
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
