1 |
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:13:12 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 2013-04-02, Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
4 |
> > On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:31:10 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote: |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> >> In Flameyes blog, he showed an example of using udev rules pretty |
7 |
> >> much identical to the ones I already had, so I couldn't figure out |
8 |
> >> what was different (other than the default interface names, which |
9 |
> >> still aren't really predictable). |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > They are totally predictable, |
12 |
> |
13 |
> As long as you know the PCI bus IDs of the slots, which board is |
14 |
> plugged into which slot, the PCI bus IDs of the USB controllers, and |
15 |
> which USB ports are connected to which controllers, and so on. For |
16 |
> most of us that equates to "not predictable". :) |
17 |
|
18 |
We're at cross-purposes here. You mentioned udev rules, which I took to |
19 |
mean user-installed rules in /etc/udev. The names udev comes up with in |
20 |
the absence of any rules are not completely predictable, nor persistent. |
21 |
|
22 |
[snip more cross-purpose confusion] |
23 |
|
24 |
> > The simplest solution is to do what the news item suggests, rename |
25 |
> > the persistent-net rules file |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Why does the file need to be renamed? |
28 |
|
29 |
> > and rename the interfaces within it to not clash with the kernel. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> So the kernel is still using the names eth[0-n]? And there's a race |
32 |
> condition if I use the names eth[0-n] in my rules? Same as before? |
33 |
|
34 |
Have you read the news item? It explains why the file should be renamed |
35 |
and also why you should change the names in the rules to not use ethN. |
36 |
|
37 |
|
38 |
-- |
39 |
Neil Bothwick |
40 |
|
41 |
My Go this amn keyboar oesn't have any 's. |