UDEV - Not Leaving Well Enough Alone

alupu at verizon.net alupu at verizon.net
Fri Nov 20 21:45:01 PST 2009


NOTE:  I originally sent a draft copy by mistake.
 Please disregard and accept my apologies
 and this "cleaned-up" post.

System: Development LFS
i686-pc-linux-gnu,, Udev-147

In files
there's a rule
KERNEL=="fd[0-9]", ACTION=="add|change", \
ATTRS{cmos}=="?*", RUN+="create_floppy_devices"

which creates (in /dev) a number of krazy devices:

fd0u1120 fd0u1600 fd0u1722 fd0u1760 fd0u1920
fd0u720 fd0u820 fd0u1040 fd0u1440 fd0u1680
fd0u1743 fd0u1840 fd0u360 fd0u800 fd0u830

In the past, I was able to avoid the proliferation
of unnecessary fd nodes by using a simple, permanent
"disabling" rule in a file called "49-... .rules" in
the '/etc/udev/rules.d' directory.
The file contained a line like,

KERNEL=="fd[0-9]", ATTRS{cmos}=="?*", OPTION="last_rule"
(NOTE: in the UDEV world, 49 beats 50 and 50 beats 55)

and this way I had peace all that time (ironically,
cluttering up the /dev directory runs contrary to
the fundamental spirit of UDEV)

Unfortunately, sometime between 146 and 147, 
a UDEV developer decided to pull the "last_rule"
OPTION right from under me, so now (147+)
I am forced to track down files like 50 and 55 and
painstakingly comment out any offending rule
by hand in order to prevent the /dev bloat.

1. How can I disable a rule now without using the
simple "last_rule" trick like in the olden times?
I did scan the "new" OPTIONS in the latest udev
manual but none seemed too attractive, at least
to my untrained eyes.

2. Does anybody keep track of duplicates?
True, the 50 adds the "change" to the 55 rule, but the
"change" (whatever that means in practical terms),
is really necessary?

3. Who needs these "CMOS" (NEC?) floppies at
end of 2009? Because of the recession, maybe?

Thanks to anybody who would bring some clarifications.

-- Alex

More information about the lfs-support mailing list