On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 00:25:40 -0700,
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 07:39:38AM +0100, Simon Arlott wrote:
> > The following commit appears to break some of my udev rules (I don't
> > have the time to finish the bisect right now, but there's only four
> > changes showing in "git bisect visualize" - this one is tagged
> > bisect/bad, and the other three are docs/docs/unrelated).
> >
> > Neither of these symlinks get created by udev on kernels marked bad
> > (see bisect log below):
> >
> > ACTION=="add", \
> > KERNEL=="event*", \
> > SUBSYSTEM=="input", \
> > SYSFS{description}=="i8042 KBD port", \
> > NAME="input/%k", \
> > SYMLINK="input/i8042-kbd", \
> > MODE="0640", \
> > GROUP="event"
> >
> > ACTION=="add", \
> > KERNEL=="event*", \
> > SUBSYSTEM=="input", \
> > SYSFS{manufacturer}=="Logitech", \
> > SYSFS{product}=="USB-PS/2 Optical Mouse", \
> > NAME="input/%k", \
> > SYMLINK="input/logitech-mouse", \
> > MODE="0640", \
> > GROUP="event"
> Ugh, I thought this was all fixed up properly :(
I thought this as well :(
But I'm a bit confused: The patch in git has
+ /* only bus-device parents get a "device"-link */
+ if (dev->parent && dev->parent->bus) {
+ error = sysfs_create_link(&dev->kobj, &dev->parent->kobj,
+ "device");
and
- if (parent) {
- sysfs_create_link(&dev->kobj, &dev->parent->kobj,
- "device");
which really look like two different things. (My original patch didn't
have the check for the parent's bus.) Don't know what happened here :(
(Simon: Do the links reappear if you change
if (dev->parent && dev->parent->bus)
to
if (dev->parent)
in device_add_class_symlinks()?)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
