dead code in persistent tape rules

dead code in persistent tape rules

[Matthias Schwarzott]

Hi there!

I think last commit to udev (persistent device naming: tape devices and medium 
changers) contains strange rules that may be thought to look other way. This 
is how they look now (60-persistent-storage.rules):

ACTION!="add", GOTO="persistent_storage_end"
ACTION!="add", GOTO="persistent_tape_end"

Second jump is never reached (as then first already branched to 
persistent_storage_end), perhaps that should be SUBSYSTEMS!="scsi" or 
similar.

Matthias

-- 
Matthias Schwarzott (zzam)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CIDÞVDEV
_______________________________________________
Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list  http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net
Linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel

Re: dead code in persistent tape rules

[Jamie Wellnitz]

On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 03:10:50PM +0100, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
> Hi there!
> 
> I think last commit to udev (persistent device naming: tape devices and medium 
> changers) contains strange rules that may be thought to look other way. This 
> is how they look now (60-persistent-storage.rules):
> 
> ACTION!="add", GOTO="persistent_storage_end"
> ACTION!="add", GOTO="persistent_tape_end"

Whoops, that's mine.

In an earlier attempt of mine, this block of rules was in a different
file and I kept this check.

> 
> Second jump is never reached (as then first already branched to 
> persistent_storage_end), perhaps that should be SUBSYSTEMS!="scsi" or 
> similar.

As you mention, the 2nd ACTION check could be changed to check for
SCSI, something like:

SUBSYSTEMS!="scsi", GOTO="persistent_tape_end"

or both references to persistent_tape_end could be removed.  I don't
think I have a preference.

> 
> Matthias
> 
> -- 
> Matthias Schwarzott (zzam)

Thanks,
	Jamie

> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CIDÞVDEV
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list  http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net
> Linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel
> 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CIDÞVDEV
_______________________________________________
Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list  http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net
Linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel

Re: dead code in persistent tape rules

[Kay Sievers]

On 2/28/07, Jamie Wellnitz <Jamie.Wellnitz@emulex.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 03:10:50PM +0100, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
> > I think last commit to udev (persistent device naming: tape devices and medium
> > changers) contains strange rules that may be thought to look other way. This
> > is how they look now (60-persistent-storage.rules):
> >
> > ACTION!="add", GOTO="persistent_storage_end"
> > ACTION!="add", GOTO="persistent_tape_end"
>
> Whoops, that's mine.
>
> In an earlier attempt of mine, this block of rules was in a different
> file and I kept this check.
>
> > Second jump is never reached (as then first already branched to
> > persistent_storage_end), perhaps that should be SUBSYSTEMS!="scsi" or
> > similar.
>
> As you mention, the 2nd ACTION check could be changed to check for
> SCSI, something like:
>
> SUBSYSTEMS!="scsi", GOTO="persistent_tape_end"
>
> or both references to persistent_tape_end could be removed.  I don't
> think I have a preference.

I've removed the jump and the label.

Thanks,
Kay

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CIDÞVDEV
_______________________________________________
Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list  http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net
Linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel

Re: dead code in persistent tape rules

[Jamie Wellnitz]

On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 05:27:49PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On 2/28/07, Jamie Wellnitz <Jamie.Wellnitz@emulex.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 03:10:50PM +0100, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
> >> I think last commit to udev (persistent device naming: tape devices and 
> >medium
> >> changers) contains strange rules that may be thought to look other way. 
> >This
> >> is how they look now (60-persistent-storage.rules):
> >>
> >> ACTION!="add", GOTO="persistent_storage_end"
> >> ACTION!="add", GOTO="persistent_tape_end"
> >
> >Whoops, that's mine.
> >
> >In an earlier attempt of mine, this block of rules was in a different
> >file and I kept this check.
> >
> >> Second jump is never reached (as then first already branched to
> >> persistent_storage_end), perhaps that should be SUBSYSTEMS!="scsi" or
> >> similar.
> >
> >As you mention, the 2nd ACTION check could be changed to check for
> >SCSI, something like:
> >
> >SUBSYSTEMS!="scsi", GOTO="persistent_tape_end"
> >
> >or both references to persistent_tape_end could be removed.  I don't
> >think I have a preference.
> 
> I've removed the jump and the label.

Thanks.  Sorry about the dead code.

> 
> Thanks,
> Kay
> 

	Jamie

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CIDÞVDEV
_______________________________________________
Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list  http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net
Linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel