ithout
> having to mess with the log level. We'd just need to see what errno is
> getting set to (which corresponds to the string that gets put into the
> log message).
Hi,
I would like to thank you for all the comments.
Right now I'v got udev-0.96 reinstalled.
I would like
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 08:21:55AM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 11/2/06, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 07:29:05AM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> >> You need at least CONFIG_NETFILTER_NETLINK
> >
> >I'm not so sure on that. Isn't netfilter the filtering (i.e
On 11/2/06, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 07:29:05AM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> You need at least CONFIG_NETFILTER_NETLINK
I'm not so sure on that. Isn't netfilter the filtering (i.e. iptables)
interface?
Oops. You're right. Apparently you'll have netlink
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 07:29:05AM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> You need at least CONFIG_NETFILTER_NETLINK
I'm not so sure on that. Isn't netfilter the filtering (i.e. iptables)
interface?
It may help to see whether "ip route show" tells you anything or gives
an error -- iproute2 uses a netlink
On 11/2/06, Stef Bon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Stef Bon wrote:
>> Socket operation on non-socket
>
> Based on pure guesswork, I'd say it's possible that your kernel doesn't
> have PF_NETLINK (netlink socket) support. But that's just a guess; we'd
> need the error descrip
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Stef Bon wrote:
>> Socket operation on non-socket
>
>
> Based on pure guesswork, I'd say it's possible that your kernel doesn't
> have PF_NETLINK (netlink socket) support. But that's just a guess; we'd
> need the error description from the socket or bind call to know for
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Stef Bon wrote:
>> Socket operation on non-socket
>
>
> Based on pure guesswork, I'd say it's possible that your kernel doesn't
> have PF_NETLINK (netlink socket) support. But that's just a guess; we'd
> need the error description from the socket or bind call to know for
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> These operations (creating the socket and bind()ing it) will generate
> their own log messages, but they'll be put into the log when udevd
> starts up, not later. So you may have to change the logging level in
> the config file (...if that's even possible anymore)
Yup. You
Hi Stef,
Stef Bon wrote:
> Nov 1 09:08:56 localhost udevd[920]: get_netlink_msg: unable to receive
> kernel netlink message: Socket operation on non-socket
> Nov 1 09:08:56 localhost udevd[920]: get_ctrl_msg: unable to receive user
> udevd message: Socket operation on non-socket
I don't have a
Stef Bon wrote:
> Socket operation on non-socket
This is the errno that's coming back from the recv() syscall. You need
to figure out why the file descriptor that's being passed to recv() is
not a socket -- my guess, based on the rest of the udevd.c source code,
is that the socket was not created
Hello,
I just tried to install udev-103 on my lfs-6.2 system, but I had remove it
agian.
I did get a lot off messages like:
Nov 1 09:08:56 localhost udevd[920]: get_netlink_msg: unable to receive
kernel netlink message: Socket operation on non-socket
Nov 1 09:08:56 localhost udevd[920
11 matches
Mail list logo
