Re: [PATCH 1/2] node_device_udev: handle move events

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:57:45AM -0400, Mark Asselstine wrote: There is, but it is only internal. We should ask for the function `udev_device_get_devpath_old()` to be publicized, if possible. That should give us the old name. When I checked this using `udevadm monitor --property` I got two events for each rename, one kernel event (where the old path pointed to the previous name) and one udev event where the old path referred to the original name the device was created with. For example when I created a virtual network device with the name "fdsa", then renamed it bunch of times, started udev monitoring and then renamed it from "first" to "second" this was the output of udevadm for that one particular rename: monitor will print the received events for: UDEV - the event which udev sends out after rule processing KERNEL - the kernel uevent KERNEL[36343.246068] move /devices/virtual/net/second (net) ACTION=move DEVPATH=/devices/virtual/net/second DEVPATH_OLD=/devices/virtual/net/first IFINDEX=3 INTERFACE=second SEQNUM=4609 SUBSYSTEM=net UDEV [36343.246785] move /devices/virtual/net/fdsa (net) ACTION=move DEVPATH=/devices/virtual/net/fdsa DEVPATH_OLD=/devices/virtual/net/first IFINDEX=3 INTERFACE=fdsa SEQNUM=4609 SUBSYSTEM=net USEC_INITIALIZED=136864589 Thank you for a patch like this, I did not want to change the error just because "it's probably fine" until I can be sure that we do not lose the device (even though someone else is clearly managing it). So I think the patches are great, and as much as I would like to add support for removing the old device if possible, probably using the function above, it will need some extra work. At least we should file a request for the udev function to be exposed. Anyway, I am not against these patches and I would even be fine with changing the warning to info in 2/2, but I will wait for someone else to see this and comment (and I'd like to know your opinion on what I wrote as well). If that does not happen, I will retest them against (at that point) current master and push them. Reviewed-by: Martin Kletzander <mkletzan(a)redhat.com&gt;