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