Add text, courtesy of Kay Sievers, that provides some background on
device_rename() and why it shouldn't be used.
Signed-off-by: Timur Tabi <email@example.com>
drivers/base/core.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
index 6ed6454..8ff1531 100644
@@ -1513,6 +1513,34 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(device_destroy);
* exclusion between two different calls of device_rename
* on the same device to ensure that new_name is valid and
* won't conflict with other devices.
+ * Note: Don't call this function. Currently, the networking layer calls this
+ * function, but that will change. The following text from Kay Sievers offer
+ * some insight:
+ * Renaming devices is racy at many levels, symlinks and other stuff are not
+ * replaced atomically, you get a "move" uevent", but it's not easy to connect
+ * the event to the old and new device. Device nodes are not renamed at all,
+ * there isn't even support for that in the kernel now.
+ * In the meantime during renaming, your target name might be taken by another
+ * driver, creating conflicts. Or the old name is taken directly after you
+ * renamed it -- then you get events for the same DEVPATH, before you even seet
+ * the "move" event. It's just a mess, and nothing new should ever rely on
+ * kernel device renaming. Besides that it's not even implemented now for other
+ * things than (driver-core wise very simple) network devices.
+ * We are currently about to change network renaming in udev to completely
+ * disallow renaming of devices in the same namespace as the kernel uses,
+ * because we can't solve the problems properly, that arise with swapping names
+ * of multiple interfaces without races. Means, renaming of eth[0-9]* will only
+ * be allowed to some other name than eth[0-9]*, for the mentioned reasons.
+ * Make up a "real" name in the ...