[Parted-maintainers] Bug#276721: tries to open non-existing device files and hangs

[Eduard Bloch]

#include <hallo.h>
* Sven Luther [Sat, Oct 16 2004, 03:31:24PM]:

> > > So, if you are trying to format /dev/hda1 or resize it or whatever, so why in
> > > hell are you trying to setup the devfs disk devices ? I also think this is
> > 
> > ??
> > 
> > I did not try to setup any new devfs related thing. I was just *using*
> > devfs, all the time.
> 
> You should not use evil devfs at all. :)
> 
> Seriously, it is going to be removed from the 2.6 kernels very soon, and you
> should maybe try using udev instead.

Seriosly, I could get gray hairs if I would read the changelog of every
version on LKML. This thing could be the future, but currently I would
not use for any production system.

> What confused me is you speaking of /dev/hda1. Are you sure you have the devfs
> stuff ? What kernels are you using anyway ?

Yes. And I have devfsd to not remember all the long number. So yes, I
have both, devfs and /dev/hda ;)

> > > related to some problem with the resize design that was spoken of in the
> > > parted mailing list. I will follow up on this. Basically, if i understood
> > > well, when resizing, libparted is syncing all the partitions, and then
> > > reopening it, or something such.
> > 
> > Something like that. Maybe it tried to open the "new" partition, which
> > did not exist because the kernel was not able to reread the part. table,
> > and then it started to wreak random havoc. Just a theory.
> 
> Did you get any message about rereading the partition table ? 

Only while exiting parted. Not when the problem occured.

> > I could, but not yet. And if my assumption above is correct, it will
> > work because on the installer, nothing is mounted so the kernel will
> > reread the partition table cleanly and create the new device file.
> 
> Err, are you trying to modify a partition while it is mounted ? This is _NOT_
> supposed to happen. But please give d-i it a try anyway, it is best to have

Heh? When I write nothing, I mean nothing. The counterpart is is
"something" and this something is the second partition where Linux was
running. I did write that before, damn. So the modified partition was
not mounted, or do you think I am going nuts?

> fact and not assumptions when tracking stuff like that. I cannot really help
> you all that much myself, since i don't use devfs, have no 2.4 kernel anymore,
> and anyway don't have any disk with a MBR or a fat partition on it anyway.

I seriously think about going back to statical /dev. Kernel developers
wanna devfs die for no good reason (maybe personal issues with its
author) and udev is a cludge IMHO.

Regards,
Eduard.
-- 
<ij> Madkiss: Niemand kann so die Nachrichten mehr aufbereiten, dass
	Otto-Normal-Bürger die versteht, da dieser viel zu dämlich dafür ist.