1 |
On 29 March 2013 16:21, Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) <nunojsilva@×××××××.pt>wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 2013-03-29, Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@×××××××××.eu> wrote: |
4 |
> > On 29/03/2013 12:34, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
5 |
> >> Diego Elio Pettenò schrieb: |
6 |
> >>> > If my desktop only has one Ethernet interface, no matter how many |
7 |
> kernel |
8 |
> >>> > changes happen, it'll always be eth0. |
9 |
> >> That was not true with the old persistent naming. One example which we |
10 |
> >> encountered in #gentoo IRC was the split between e1000 and e1000e |
11 |
> drivers |
12 |
> >> which caused interfaces to change names. |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > Okay let me re-qualify the statement: |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> > "If my desktop only has one Ethernet interface, and I don't mess up with |
17 |
> > it in userspace at all, no matter how many kernel changes happen, it'll |
18 |
> > always be eth0". |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > Yes, the previous persistent rules for udev would have messed that one |
21 |
> > up when e1000e got split, or if you switched between the |
22 |
> > Broadcom-provided driver to the kernel one or vice-versa. The deathforce |
23 |
> > drivers come in mind as well. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> IMHO this is really relevant. It is annoying seeing how many people go |
26 |
> "oh you *must not* use the old scheme, because it won't work". |
27 |
> |
28 |
> The new naming scheme does *not* prevent you from using eth0, users |
29 |
> should really just be told they can *disable* udev rules (and told how |
30 |
> to do it) if they are happy with the kernel name of their sole network |
31 |
> card, instead of being told that they *must* upgrade to the new rules. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> The messages so far seem to imply that you can't have eth0. You *can*, |
34 |
> but udev won't be able to do anything if the device appears as |
35 |
> something else and there's already another eth0. If you don't already |
36 |
> have eth0, the udev rules *will* work, even if your card is named in |
37 |
> the eth namespace. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> The *only* thing that breaks is renaming network devices to names that |
40 |
> are already in use inside the kernel namespaces. |
41 |
> |
42 |
> |
43 |
> -- |
44 |
> Nuno Silva (aka njsg) |
45 |
> http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/ |
46 |
> |
47 |
> |
48 |
> |
49 |
I sort of agree here. The news item is rather scary for people maintaining |
50 |
remote boxes. Couldn't we just |
51 |
preserve the old behavior with an opt-in for people who want to use this |
52 |
new feature? Or am I reading the message wrong? |
53 |
In my mind, the message says "either remove 70-* and setup 80-*" or your |
54 |
system will end up broken. |
55 |
|
56 |
-- |
57 |
Regards, |
58 |
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer |
59 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang |