From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RFmdt-000491-BB for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:50:09 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 833EB21C06A; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:49:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.digimed.co.uk (82-69-83-178.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk [82.69.83.178]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B25EC21C0D6 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:48:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zaphod.digimed.co.uk (zaphod.digimed.co.uk [192.168.1.1]) by mail.digimed.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 023BB803EB for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:48:29 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:48:24 +0100 From: Neil Bothwick To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Another Install Issue Message-ID: <20111017134824.5d770d67@zaphod.digimed.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4E9C220C.7090101@binarywings.net> References: <4E9A119D.1000501@gmail.com> <4E9AAC83.3050305@binarywings.net> <201110161118.45443.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <4E9B5C37.7060501@binarywings.net> <20111017091500.5e600736@zaphod.digimed.co.uk> <20111017123015.6feec5cc@zaphod.digimed.co.uk> <4E9C220C.7090101@binarywings.net> Organization: Digital Media Production X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.10cvs30 (GTK+ 2.24.6; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) X-GPG-Fingerprint: 7260 0F33 97EC 2F1E 7667 FE37 BA6E 1A97 4375 1903 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/3/gfyJBp6rgVnsrdB7hQcPH"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: cabfc18f29f83e3efd85f15d86fb789e --Sig_/3/gfyJBp6rgVnsrdB7hQcPH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:39:40 +0200, Florian Philipp wrote: > > Is it up to an init script to do that either? I'd say no. either way > > seems wrong, but having the network config check that the interface is > > available before trying to bring it up seems somewhat less wrong. > Yes, I intended it to return 0 unconditionally. My reasoning was that > a) trying anyway doesn't hurt. Fair enough. > One thing that I worry more about is that there might be a race > condition. Maybe after loading the module, some time is necessary for > the interface to appear. I ran into an issue like that while playing > around with the zram module. In such a case, the separate init script > has a higher chance to succeed than a bash function called some > milliseconds before the interface initialization. You could add a "sleep 1" to preup(). --=20 Neil Bothwick By the time you can make ends meet, they move the ends. --Sig_/3/gfyJBp6rgVnsrdB7hQcPH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk6cJBwACgkQum4al0N1GQNengCffDXfRWmXcjcglb0zXl5v+0gP uK4AoJOT97qNEknYZrZvwAnN8r4qBEOv =JgRF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/3/gfyJBp6rgVnsrdB7hQcPH--