Hi,
anonym wrote (27 Nov 2013 14:00:50 GMT) :
> 26/11/13 18:26, intrigeri wrote:
>> So, *if* we really want to preemptively address this potential
>> problem, I think I'm slightly in favour of having the user wait before
>> being logged in, and ideally being explained that they might have to
>> wait a bit, and if it's too long, they should report a bug.
> What about my approach + showing a notification if udev didn't settle
> after the first 10 seconds, using two consecutive `udevadm
> settle`:s?
Looks good to me.
> Furthermore, after the first `udevadm settle`, if MAC spoofing isn't
> enabled, or if it is enabled *but* *it* *didn't* *fail*, then we can
> ignore ignore the second `udevadm settle`, because we have the exact
> conditions we were waiting for before we dare starting NetworkManager.
In this (success) case, we can as well leave the 2nd `udevadm settle'
since all events have been handled already at this time, so this
command will return immediately, right?
>> But again, I personally don't think we should worry about this right
>> now. I bet we'll have enough very real problems to take care of after
>> the first release that has this branch in, let's save time and energy
>> for those ones.
> Ok. I'd still appreciate a quick read of the above and a comment about
> if you think my new solution is the way to go; if positive, I'll add
> something to the blueprint so this isn't lost in case we need it.
Agreed, adding this to the blueprint seems to be the way to go.
Cheers!
--
intrigeri
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
| OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc
