1 |
On 29/03/13 18:21, Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote: |
2 |
> On 2013-03-29, Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@×××××××××.eu> wrote: |
3 |
>> On 29/03/2013 12:34, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
4 |
>>> Diego Elio Pettenò schrieb: |
5 |
>>>>> If my desktop only has one Ethernet interface, no matter how many kernel |
6 |
>>>>> changes happen, it'll always be eth0. |
7 |
>>> That was not true with the old persistent naming. One example which we |
8 |
>>> encountered in #gentoo IRC was the split between e1000 and e1000e drivers |
9 |
>>> which caused interfaces to change names. |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> Okay let me re-qualify the statement: |
12 |
>> |
13 |
>> "If my desktop only has one Ethernet interface, and I don't mess up with |
14 |
>> it in userspace at all, no matter how many kernel changes happen, it'll |
15 |
>> always be eth0". |
16 |
>> |
17 |
>> Yes, the previous persistent rules for udev would have messed that one |
18 |
>> up when e1000e got split, or if you switched between the |
19 |
>> Broadcom-provided driver to the kernel one or vice-versa. The deathforce |
20 |
>> drivers come in mind as well. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> IMHO this is really relevant. It is annoying seeing how many people go |
23 |
> "oh you *must not* use the old scheme, because it won't work". |
24 |
> |
25 |
> The new naming scheme does *not* prevent you from using eth0, users |
26 |
> should really just be told they can *disable* udev rules (and told how |
27 |
> to do it) if they are happy with the kernel name of their sole network |
28 |
> card, instead of being told that they *must* upgrade to the new rules. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> The messages so far seem to imply that you can't have eth0. You *can*, |
31 |
> but udev won't be able to do anything if the device appears as |
32 |
> something else and there's already another eth0. If you don't already |
33 |
> have eth0, the udev rules *will* work, even if your card is named in |
34 |
> the eth namespace. |
35 |
> |
36 |
> The *only* thing that breaks is renaming network devices to names that |
37 |
> are already in use inside the kernel namespaces. |
38 |
|
39 |
I think you may have not seen the latest version, it says for eg. |
40 |
|
41 |
"If you only have one interface card, you don't necessarily have much |
42 |
use for this feature as the name almost always stays at eth0, you can |
43 |
easily disable it using forementioned methods." |
44 |
|
45 |
After first listing 3 different ways of disabling the new names earlier. |
46 |
|
47 |
http://sources.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/gentoo-news.git;a=blob_plain;f=2013/2013-03-29-udev-upgrade/2013-03-29-udev-upgrade.en.txt;hb=HEAD |
48 |
|
49 |
But I'd prefer not to lead people to the path of renaming into namespace |
50 |
already taken... that can lead to issues. It sounds almost as hackish as |
51 |
the script that frees the whole namespace by using temporary names: |
52 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=336774 |
53 |
|
54 |
Still trying to decipher people if there is more to adjust in the news |
55 |
though, it doesn't have to be frozen as is, if you have better wording, |
56 |
please provide a patch against the current. Thanks :) |
57 |
|
58 |
- Samuli |