I have several reports about firewire drives not working with hal 0.5.5.1 (udev 079, dbus 0.60, kernel 2.6.15). The device is recognized, but hal does not add nodes for volumes:
13:27:52.857 [I] osspec.c:203: SEQNUM=2453, ACTION=add, SUBSYS=block, SYSFSPATH=/block/sda, DEVNAME=/dev/sda, IFINDEX=-1 13:27:52.858 [I] blockdev.c:566: block_add: sysfs_path=/sys/block/sda dev=/dev/sda is_part=0, parent=0x08089570 13:27:52.858 [I] blockdev.c:781: parent_bus is scsi 13:27:53.088 [I] osspec.c:203: SEQNUM=2454, ACTION=add, SUBSYS=block, SYSFSPATH=/block/sda/sda1, DEVNAME=/dev/sda1, IFINDEX=-1 13:27:53.088 [I] blockdev.c:566: block_add: sysfs_path=/sys/block/sda/sda1 dev=/dev/sda1 is_part=1, parent=0x00000000 13:27:53.088 [I] blockdev.c:477: get_luks_uuid: device_file=/dev/sda1 13:27:53.088 [I] blockdev.c:602: Ignoring hotplug event - no parent
so parent is indeed NULL for /dev/sda1, although it is valid for /dev/sda (and the order looks fine, too).
The original bug report https://bugzilla.ubuntu.com/show_bug.cgi?id=20564 has full details and logs.
Can this be related to #5403?
Thanks in advance!
I have several reports about firewire drives not working with hal 0.5.5.1 (udev
079, dbus 0.60, kernel 2.6.15). The device is recognized, but hal does not add
nodes for volumes:
13:27:52.857 [I] osspec.c:203: SEQNUM=2453, ACTION=add, SUBSYS=block, /block/ sda, DEVNAME=/dev/sda, IFINDEX=-1 /sys/block/ sda /block/ sda/sda1, DEVNAME=/dev/sda1, IFINDEX=-1 /sys/block/ sda/sda1 file=/dev/ sda1
SYSFSPATH=
13:27:52.858 [I] blockdev.c:566: block_add: sysfs_path=
dev=/dev/sda is_part=0, parent=0x08089570
13:27:52.858 [I] blockdev.c:781: parent_bus is scsi
13:27:53.088 [I] osspec.c:203: SEQNUM=2454, ACTION=add, SUBSYS=block,
SYSFSPATH=
13:27:53.088 [I] blockdev.c:566: block_add: sysfs_path=
dev=/dev/sda1 is_part=1, parent=0x00000000
13:27:53.088 [I] blockdev.c:477: get_luks_uuid: device_
13:27:53.088 [I] blockdev.c:602: Ignoring hotplug event - no parent
so parent is indeed NULL for /dev/sda1, although it is valid for /dev/sda (and
the order looks fine, too).
The original bug report https:/ /bugzilla. ubuntu. com/show_ bug.cgi? id=20564 has
full details and logs.
Can this be related to #5403?
Thanks in advance!