Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 09:57:51 -0700 From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net> To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@freebsd.org> Cc: gnome@freebsd.org, Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> Subject: Re: ports/149134: x11/gnome2 unable to unmount UFS file system Message-ID: <20100829165751.D33581CC3A@ptavv.es.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 29 Aug 2010 12:22:20 EDT." <4C7A893C.2070000@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 12:22:20 -0400 > From: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@freebsd.org> > Sender: owner-freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org > > On 8/29/10 5:29 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > on 29/08/2010 01:18 Joe Marcus Clarke said the following: > >> On 8/28/10 4:02 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote: > >>> on 28/08/2010 22:28 Joe Marcus Clarke said the following: > >>>> > >>>> Try http://www.marcuscom.com/downloads/patch-hald_hf-storage.c > >>> > >>> Just wondering aloud... Would the same strange things (mentioned in the comment > >>> in the patch) happen with labels for other filesystems like msdos/ cd9660/ ? > >>> Or it's something specific to UFS? > >>> > >> > >> Yeah, it could happen for other labels, I suppose. The problem is that > >> the labels that appear dynamically depending oh whether or not a device > >> is mounted confuses hal. If someone mounts /dev/cd0, unmounts it, then > >> sees /dev/cd9660/FREEBSD appear, that will cause hal to think a new > >> device was inserted. > >> > >> That said, I've only seen this happen with UFS. > > > > > > BTW, there seems to be an exclamation mark missing in the following part of the > > patch (hope you use monospaced font): > > > > + ! strcmp(fields[1], "PART")) && > > + ! (strncmp(fields[2], "ufsid/", strlen("ufsid/")) || > > Here----------^ > > + ! strncmp(fields[2], "ufs/", strlen("ufs/")))) > > > > > > Ugh, you're right. When I added "ufs/" to the list, I broke the logic. > It should be fixed now. That explains some of the weirdness I've been seeing. I'm really embarrassed as I found the error in the patch for 2.28 and fixed it (somewhat differently as I demorganized the logic and changed an || to an &&) and then THOUGHT I had confirmed that the patch to 2.30 included my fix. Don't know how I missed it. :-( And, yes, I did post a note about the broken logic back on Feb. 23. "I just actually looked at the patch above and I think the problem is that the second line needs to end with || and not &&. I just re-built hal with this and I will give it a shot after lunch." Looks like I neglected to send a confirmation that it did work, though. Thanks for catching it, Andriy. I can confirm that it is working, now. I suspect that the logic error was really the only problem and that the two lines you added to the patch are superfluous. I have not seen any indication that they cause any problems, but I have not done really rigorous testing, either. Guess Santayana was right. I forgot the past and we just repeated it. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100829165751.D33581CC3A>