| 1 |
On 2013-03-31, Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) <nunojsilva@×××××××.pt> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2013-03-31, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 30/03/13 17:15, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Ok, just read the new news item and the linked udev-guide wiki page |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> You should probably also read: |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2013/03/predictably-non-persistent-names |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> and: |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2013/03/predictable-persistently-non-mnemonic-names |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> The feeling that I got while reading the first was exactly what the |
| 16 |
> second talks about. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> We - from what I understand - had scripts automatically generating the |
| 19 |
> name rules from MAC addresses, it's just that they generated stuff like |
| 20 |
> ethX. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Can't we just keep these scripts around (even if this was something |
| 23 |
> provided by upstream and we would have to forge a new incarnation)? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> I mean, IMHO, net0, wl0, ... are much easier to deal with and understand |
| 26 |
> than something physically-based. They also avoid problems caused by |
| 27 |
> moving these cards around, or changes in the kernel drivers or BIOS, or |
| 28 |
> BIOS settings that eventually end up exposing cards in a different way. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> The problem with the old approach was *just* the name clash that |
| 31 |
> rendered the hacky approach unreliable. Maybe we could just fix the |
| 32 |
> issue by using non-clashing namespaces, instead of pushing a completely |
| 33 |
> different (and possibly less reliable) naming scheme by default. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Ok, after some chat on IRC, it seems that upstream made it rather |
| 36 |
non-trivial to have something like the old rule-generator, and that's |
| 37 |
why we can't simply move that from, e.g., ethX to, say, netX. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Nuno Silva (aka njsg) |
| 41 |
http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/ |
Archives