[lxc-devel] call to setup_dev_symlinks with lxc.autodev

[Serge Hallyn]

Quoting Michael H. Warfield (mhw at WittsEnd.com):
> On Thu, 2014-04-17 at 12:09 -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Michael H. Warfield (mhw at WittsEnd.com):
> > > On Thu, 2014-04-17 at 10:19 -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> > > > Quoting Michael H. Warfield (mhw at WittsEnd.com):
> > > 
> > > [Snip]
> > > 
> > > > > 1) Fix the broken image and finish populating the /dev directory in a
> > > > > hook script as you are now doing.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 2) Create the mandatory symlinks when you create the image and fix the
> > > > > existing images on disk.
> > > > > 
> > > > > You've already done #1.  In my mind, that seems like the best solution
> > > > > whether or not you do #2.
> > > 
> > > > So it sounds like you think that if he had not done either of these and
> > > > lxc had simply ignored the errors, he would have had an error in
> > > > userspace later on?
> > > 
> > > He might have.  Recurse back to what Harald reported about the /dev/fd
> > > error.  It would depend on a process accessing one of those required
> > > links.
> > > 
> > > > Perhaps what we need is a clearer error message on the failure.  Does
> > > > someone mind writing the patch to do so?
> > > 
> > > I'm not so sure.  He didn't give us the error message he got.  I'd like
> 
> > I thought at one point he did.
> 
> I looked and I didn't see it.  I'll rereview the entire thread again.
> 
> > > to see that.  To me, that call to SYSERROR should be sufficient.
> 
> > It doesn't say "and this must exist per <kerneldocfile>".  So it sounds
> > like we want it, rather than 'it must be there or things will break'.
> 
> Harald didn't say that.

More importantly lxc didn't tell Harald that, and that has greatly
lengthened this thread.