Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Pandu Poluan <pandu@××××××.info>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 16:26:39
Message-Id: CAA2qdGXiT5EYcJH+QByqNzqDzrKCwBOarWmOomTxK4ea4cYYew@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes by "Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg)"
1 On Mar 31, 2013 7:13 PM, "Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg)" <nunojsilva@×××××××.pt>
2 wrote:
3 >
4 > On 2013-03-31, Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) <nunojsilva@×××××××.pt> wrote:
5 > > On 2013-03-31, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@×××××.com> wrote:
6 > >> On 30/03/13 17:15, Tanstaafl wrote:
7 > >>> Ok, just read the new news item and the linked udev-guide wiki page
8 > >>
9 > >> You should probably also read:
10 > >>
11 > >> http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2013/03/predictably-non-persistent-names
12 > >>
13 > >> and:
14 > >>
15 > >>
16 > >>
17 http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2013/03/predictable-persistently-non-mnemonic-names
18 > >
19 > > The feeling that I got while reading the first was exactly what the
20 > > second talks about.
21 > >
22 > > We - from what I understand - had scripts automatically generating the
23 > > name rules from MAC addresses, it's just that they generated stuff like
24 > > ethX.
25 > >
26 > > Can't we just keep these scripts around (even if this was something
27 > > provided by upstream and we would have to forge a new incarnation)?
28 > >
29 > > I mean, IMHO, net0, wl0, ... are much easier to deal with and understand
30 > > than something physically-based. They also avoid problems caused by
31 > > moving these cards around, or changes in the kernel drivers or BIOS, or
32 > > BIOS settings that eventually end up exposing cards in a different way.
33 > >
34 > > The problem with the old approach was *just* the name clash that
35 > > rendered the hacky approach unreliable. Maybe we could just fix the
36 > > issue by using non-clashing namespaces, instead of pushing a completely
37 > > different (and possibly less reliable) naming scheme by default.
38 >
39 > Ok, after some chat on IRC, it seems that upstream made it rather
40 > non-trivial to have something like the old rule-generator, and that's
41 > why we can't simply move that from, e.g., ethX to, say, netX.
42 >
43 > --
44 > Nuno Silva (aka njsg)
45 > http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/
46 >
47 >
48
49 Since it's obvious that upsteam has this "my way or the highway" mentality,
50 I'm curious about whether eudev (and mdev) exhibits the same behavior...
51
52 Rgds,
53 --

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com>