On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 12:48 PM Verma, Vishal L <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2022-04-18 at 12:15 -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 11:54 AM Vishal Verma > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Older systemd was more tolerant of how unit names are passed in for > > > instantiated services via a udev rule, but of late, systemd flags > > > unescaped unit names, with an error such as: > > > > > > fedora systemd[1]: Invalid unit name "daxdev- > > > reconfigure@/dev/dax0.0.service" > > > escaped as "[email protected]" (maybe you > > > should use > > > systemd-escape?). > > > > > > > Does systemd-escape exist on older systemd deployments? Is some new > > systemd version detection or 'systemd-escape' detection needed in the > > build configuration to select the format of 90-daxctl-device.rules? > > Good point - I think we're okay. systemd-escape was introduced in v216 > back in 2014 [1], and from a quick glance at repology, even the oldest > distros are at least on v219 [2]. > > [1]: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/main/NEWS#L10370 > [2]: https://repology.org/project/systemd/versions
Ok, cool, looks good to me then: Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <[email protected]>
