Sunday, 19 May 2013

Re: Call for testing: new udev -- switch to vendor/name/slot based net interface names?

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 12:53:22PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Stéphane Graber [2013-05-14 15:44 -0400]:
> > So I'd much prefer we stick to something that's been working rather well
> > for all these years and let other people do the experiments with that stuff.

> Fair enough. I forward-ported the old rules generators to the current
> 202 package. I tested it in a VM and my workstation, with wifi and
> eth, with and without pre-existing rules. I updated my PPA package,
> 202-0ubuntu5pitti6 now.

> I heard positive feedback from 5 people, and no regression reports so
> far, so I'll upload this to saucy next Tuesday (I want to avoid a
> Friday upload). I'd still appreciate if someone with an existing LVM
> or/and cryptsetup could double-check this.

udev 202-0ubuntu5pitti6 - I've tested on a system with cryptsetup and LVM.
However, my recollection is that the bug those patches were meant to fix
would not hit configurations like this one; because my root filesystem is on
the encrypted VG, udev would never be stopped while those events were still
being processed since they're dependencies of the root filesystem and udev
is only stopped after the rootfs is found.

So the udev isn't noticably broken in general for cryptsetup/lvm, but I
don't think I have a regression test for that particular bug.

--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
[email protected] [email protected]