Comment 60 for bug 19171

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 07:47:56PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> An interesting comment.

> Subject: Bug#317333: acknowledged by developer (Bug#317333: fixed in udev 0.063-1)
> From: Mourad De Clerck <email address hidden>
> To: Marco d'Itri <email address hidden>
> Cc: <email address hidden>

> On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 16:49 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Aug 14, Mourad De Clerck <email address hidden> wrote:
> >
> > > Unfortunately, using linux-image-2.6.12-1-k7 2.6.12-2 and udev 0.066-1 I
> > > can still reproduce this bug. After boot certain devices don't show up,
> > One of the udev maintainers suggested to try adding mousedev to
> > /etc/modules.
> >
>
> Actually, they are on to something because I had just found out
> something significant.
>
> I had 2 things in my /etc/modules:
>
> mousedev
> ide-cd
>
> The reason why I added mousedev is that (quite) a while back it wouldn't
> get automatically loaded. ide-cd was a debian default if I am not
> mistaken.
>
> I commented both out, and on reboot /dev/input/mice was there!

Strange, the event seems to get lost. If you restore the
failing setup and add a "sleep 1" before udevstart, does it work then?

> Just to make sure there were no other devices missing, I started
> udevstart again and compared the before and afters:
>
> --- dev_before_udevstart.txt 2005-08-25 16:20:35.000000000 +0200
> +++ dev_after_udevstart.txt 2005-08-25 16:20:54.000000000 +0200
> @@ -1,2 +1,5 @@
> /dev/
> +/dev/dvd1
> +/dev/cdrw1
> +/dev/cdrom1
> /dev/vcsa1
>
> Now this is weird (and new) - there's no clear reason why extra
> (unecessary) dev nodes are made afterwards, and why he didn't make them
> in the first place (on boot). The nodes point to the same thing:
>
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 3 Aug 25 16:19 /dev/dvd -> hdc
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 3 Aug 25 16:20 /dev/dvd1 -> hdc
>
> (similarly for cdrw/cdrw1, and cdrom/cdrom1 - there's no dvd0)
>
> I guess it's because I commented out ide-cd too ...?
>
> It's still very weird that modules listed in /etc/modules have this
> effect on udev. In the end the same modules are loaded, just at
> different times (and maybe twice?).

No, this is ok. %e is used, i think. That %e is not very smart and just
increases the number if the udevdb is not cleared before the run of
udevstart.

Kay