On 30.11.2018 21:01, Michael Heimpold wrote:
Am Freitag, 30. November 2018, 16:07:40 CET schrieb Rafał Miłecki:
From: Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]>
This is what was implemented in mountd and what some scripts used to
use. It's a pretty generic solution for managing software that may use
e.g. USB storage.
Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]>
---
It's just a RFC for now. It's mainly missing a "remove" event support.
---
block.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
diff --git a/block.c b/block.c
index a356315..20c14fe 100644
--- a/block.c
+++ b/block.c
@@ -880,6 +880,31 @@ static int exec_mount(const char *source, const char
*target, return err;
}
+static void hotplug_call_mount(const char *action, const char *device)
+{
+ pid_t pid;
+
+ pid = fork();
+ if (!pid) {
+ char * const argv[] = { "hotplug-call", "mount", (char *)0 };
Any special reason not to use NULL here?
Copy & paste. I'll switch to the NULL.
+ char actionenv[14];
"ACTION=remove" would just fit, personally I always align to 4 or 8 byte...
+ char deviceenv[32];
+ char *envp[] = { actionenv, deviceenv, (char *)0 };
as above, not NULL?
+ snprintf(actionenv, sizeof(actionenv), "ACTION=%s", action);
+ snprintf(deviceenv, sizeof(deviceenv), "DEVICE=%s", device);
maybe we should add the mountpoint, too. so a script could easily look for
files (e.g. firmware updates) below this entry point without the need to
find out the mountpoint itself.
I like this idea!
+
+ execve("/sbin/hotplug-call", argv, envp);
+ exit(-1);
EXIT_FAILURE instead of -1?
Maybe. execve should never really return. I think we use exit(-1) everywhere.
+ } else if (pid > 0) {
+ int status;
+
+ waitpid(pid, &status, 0);
+ if (WEXITSTATUS(status))
+ ULOG_ERR("hotplug-call call failed: %d\n",
WEXITSTATUS(status));
+ }
+}
+
static int handle_mount(const char *source, const char *target,
const char *fstype, struct mount *m)
{
@@ -1079,6 +1104,8 @@ static int mount_device(struct probe_info *pr, int
type)
handle_swapfiles(true);
+ hotplug_call_mount("add", device);
"devices" not available at this point -> compile error?
Maybe we also should check that the mount actually was successful before
firing the hotplug event?
Few lines above there is error handling.
+
return 0;
}
I'm not so familiar with ubus - still on my todo list to investigate deeper:-)
But I also though about firing an event via ubus?
Not sure about possible use case / gain. Maybe send a patch once basic
hotplug.d events are implemented?
Thanks for a review!
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
