Archaic wrote:
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 10:02:48AM +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
KERNEL=="capi", NAME="capi20", SYMLINK="isdn/capi20"
KERNEL=="capi*", NAME="capi/%n", GROUP="dialout"
Won't the second rule match the bare "capi" device and thus hide the result
of the first one?
At one time it was (or at least was believed) that the 1st rule to match
won. In that is still true, then the above construct makes sense. If it
isn't true, then what order are the rules processed in?
The code (sorry, no better documentation yet):
/* look for a matching rule to apply */
udev_rules_iter_init(rules);
while (1) {
rule = udev_rules_iter_next(rules);
if (rule == NULL)
break;
if (name_set && rule->name.operation != KEY_OP_UNSET) {
dbg("node name already set, rule ignored");
continue;
}
dbg("process rule");
/* The rest of processing goes here, snipped */
}
So: for NAME, the first rule wins (but later rules produce dbg messages). For
the rest of attributes, the last rule wins, unless the ":=" operator is used.
Therefore, my initial worrying was wrong, the capi rules seem to be OK (except
for the warning about node name already set). But, I cannot verify this
directly. Just in case, I propose to modify the second rule to:
KERNEL=="capi?*", NAME="capi/%n", GROUP="dialout"
The new tarball is here:
http://downloads.linuxfromscratch.org/udev-config-20060502.tar.bz2
The firmware rule is duplicated in 26- and 27- files.
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
