Comment 15 for bug 1834875

So looking at that output, I have these observations:

* we are dealing with a fairly tight window; in the successful run, the timestamp of the symlink is 06:34:12.981040800 and we run the `ls` command to show us that at 06:34:12,991; that's about 10ms
* based on the timestamp of the next log message in each case, `udevadm settle` on success appears to take substantially longer (06:34:12,907 -> 06:34:12,991; 84ms) than on failure (06:25:43,624 -> 06:25:43,633; 9ms)
* on success, the timestamp of the symlink is between the `udevadm settle` and the next log message, which suggests that it was created as a result of the settle

So none of this points to something _obvious_ (or, at least, not something obvious to me). Given the disparity in the apparent `udevadm settle` execution times, I wonder if the udev events from the resize haven't made their way in to the queue before we execute the settle, meaning it just exits without waiting at all?