| 1 |
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 09:24:33PM +0100, Sven K?hler wrote: |
| 2 |
> > As others have said, look at using udev to name your network devices in |
| 3 |
> > a persistant manner, it's the best solution. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Yes, i agree. But i have thought about it, and i wonder, if it's going |
| 6 |
> to work if: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> 1. udev loads the modules which results in a "natural order": saying |
| 9 |
> eth0 and eth1 are used. |
| 10 |
> 2. my udev-rules say, that the network-card which has the "natural name" |
| 11 |
> eth1 has to be called eth0 |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Will udev rename the card eth1 to eth0 and the card eth0 to eth1? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Have you tried it, you might be supprised :) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Or just pick a better name, there are nicer ones other than 'eth0' and |
| 18 |
'eth1'. Some distros refuse to use those old names anymore... |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> Maybe udev also loads the modules in a way, so that the cards don't get |
| 21 |
> any "natural name" by the kernel and instead, the udev-daemon has the |
| 22 |
> full power to assign the names. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Nope, udev will not guarantee any order that the modules are loaded in, |
| 25 |
sorry. Again, you should never rely on that ordering anyway. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
thanks, |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
greg k-h |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives