[lm-sensors] sensors-detect: probing i2c sensors racy?
forest at alittletooquiet.net
Thu Feb 4 00:47:01 CET 2010
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 01:56:17PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:05:22 -0500, Forest Bond wrote:
> > Hi,
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 09:56:47AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > Hi Forest,
> > >
> > > On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:31:58 -0500, Forest Bond wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 05:11:48PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > > > give a try to the latest one:
> > > > > http://dl.lm-sensors.org/lm-sensors/files/sensors-detect
> > > >
> > > > This seems to work fine. Thanks for the help.
> > >
> > > Without the extra patch? Hmm, then I don't know if I should apply it.
> > > On the one hand, why change the code if it works... OTOH, there may be
> > > cases where udev will still be too slow and the bug you've hit will
> > > resurface again.
> > I only tested once. I guess the race condition is more likely to fall the right
> > way with the new script (based on your comments, I assume the race still
> > exists). Would it be helpful if I tested a few more times?
> If you can, yes please.
> > The patch seemed small enough that I wouldn't think it would cause problems.
> Well, I just would appreciate if you (or others) could test it, to make
> sure I didn't accidentally introduce a regression. I think I'll merge
> it then.
I finally got around to testing this. As I mentioned before, svn revision 5642
seems to solve my issue, but I see no regressions with your patch applied. I
suspect the udev approach is less prone to races.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the lm-sensors