On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 14:04 -0400, Neal Murphy wrote:
> On Friday 29 April 2011 12:42:47 Andrew Benton wrote:
> > SUBSYSTEM=="rtc", ACTION=="add", MODE="0644",
> > RUN+="/etc/rc.d/init.d/setclock start" KERNEL=="rtc", ACTION=="add",
> > MODE="0644", RUN+="/etc/rc.d/init.d/setclock start"
>
> This rule looks rather misshapen. Translated to more traditional C-ish logic:
> if ((SUBSYSTEM == "rtc") && (ACTION == "add") &&
> (KERNEL == "rtc") && (ACTION == "add")) {
> MODE = "0644";
> RUN += "/etc/rc.d/init.d/setclock start";
> MODE = "0644";
> RUN += "/etc/rc.d/init.d/setclock start";
> }
> I don't know if udev can handle a rule when conditions and actions are
> intermixed and repeated. But if it didn't barf, it must've been OK.
Andrew's post is missing a newline, I think. It's actually two rules:
SUBSYSTEM=="rtc", ACTION=="add",
MODE="0644",
RUN+="/etc/rc.d/init.d/setclock start"
and
KERNEL=="rtc", ACTION=="add",
MODE="0644",
RUN+="/etc/rc.d/init.d/setclock start"
Simon.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
