Skip to content

udev,sd-device: drop old database support#40801

Open
yuwata wants to merge 3 commits intosystemd:mainfrom
yuwata:udev-drop-old-database-support
Open

udev,sd-device: drop old database support#40801
yuwata wants to merge 3 commits intosystemd:mainfrom
yuwata:udev-drop-old-database-support

Conversation

@yuwata
Copy link
Member

@yuwata yuwata commented Feb 24, 2026

Closing #40776.

@yuwata yuwata added this to the v261 milestone Feb 24, 2026
The udev database versioning has been introduced in v247, which is
released on 2020-11-26.
Let's drop the support of old udev database.
The mapping from device ID to watch handle has been introduced by
e7f781e (v249, released on 2021-07-07).
Let's drop the runtime upgradability of udevd from an ancient version.
The new file format in /run/udev/links/ has been introduced in
377a83f (v250, released on 2021-12-23).
Let's drop the old format support, to simplify the logic.
@yuwata yuwata force-pushed the udev-drop-old-database-support branch from 95ce48b to b8e3b8f Compare February 25, 2026 16:59
@yuwata yuwata marked this pull request as ready for review February 25, 2026 17:00
@github-actions github-actions bot added the please-review PR is ready for (re-)review by a maintainer label Feb 25, 2026

/* This reads priority and device node from the symlink under /run/udev/links (or udev database).
/* This reads priority and device node from the symlink under /run/udev/links/ directory.
* If 'devnode' is NULL, obtained priority is always set to '*priority'. If 'devnode' is non-NULL,
Copy link
Member

@keszybz keszybz Mar 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Existing issue, of course, but this sentence is backwards: the obtained priority is saved to '*priority'.
So maybe say "If 'devnode' is NULL, *priority is always set the the obtained priority.".

Copy link
Member

@keszybz keszybz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM.

I'd have a slight preference to merge this after v260, mostly becuase we're already after -rc1 and should be doing -rc2 soon and it's better to minimize big changes. We don't touch this area of the code very often so there shouldn't be a lot of problem with rebasing. But if you think it should go in now, I'd be fine with that too.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants