From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C058138010 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:04:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EACCBE0AAB; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:04:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 104D8E0994 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:04:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.185.119.106] (85-76-136-41-nat.elisa-mobile.fi [85.76.136.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ssuominen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 566D433DB9C for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:04:36 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5155D757.6020400@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 20:03:03 +0200 From: Samuli Suominen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130327 Thunderbird/17.0.4 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Request of news item review: 2013-03-29-udev-predictable-network-interface-names.en.txt References: <51554C37.4000508@gentoo.org> <51556C3A.1020803@gentoo.org> <515570F2.2030902@flameeyes.eu> <515571D8.7030008@gentoo.org> <5155749A.5010302@flameeyes.eu> <51557C50.7060404@gentoo.org> <51557DB2.1090202@flameeyes.eu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 89beb9cb-e6b7-4d4d-8461-284e7ca48217 X-Archives-Hash: 0e170559cfa3a80c380c013d91cbe0c7 On 29/03/13 18:21, Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote: > On 2013-03-29, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: >> On 29/03/2013 12:34, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: >>> Diego Elio Pettenò schrieb: >>>>> If my desktop only has one Ethernet interface, no matter how many kernel >>>>> changes happen, it'll always be eth0. >>> That was not true with the old persistent naming. One example which we >>> encountered in #gentoo IRC was the split between e1000 and e1000e drivers >>> which caused interfaces to change names. >> >> Okay let me re-qualify the statement: >> >> "If my desktop only has one Ethernet interface, and I don't mess up with >> it in userspace at all, no matter how many kernel changes happen, it'll >> always be eth0". >> >> Yes, the previous persistent rules for udev would have messed that one >> up when e1000e got split, or if you switched between the >> Broadcom-provided driver to the kernel one or vice-versa. The deathforce >> drivers come in mind as well. > > IMHO this is really relevant. It is annoying seeing how many people go > "oh you *must not* use the old scheme, because it won't work". > > The new naming scheme does *not* prevent you from using eth0, users > should really just be told they can *disable* udev rules (and told how > to do it) if they are happy with the kernel name of their sole network > card, instead of being told that they *must* upgrade to the new rules. > > The messages so far seem to imply that you can't have eth0. You *can*, > but udev won't be able to do anything if the device appears as > something else and there's already another eth0. If you don't already > have eth0, the udev rules *will* work, even if your card is named in > the eth namespace. > > The *only* thing that breaks is renaming network devices to names that > are already in use inside the kernel namespaces. I think you may have not seen the latest version, it says for eg. "If you only have one interface card, you don't necessarily have much use for this feature as the name almost always stays at eth0, you can easily disable it using forementioned methods." After first listing 3 different ways of disabling the new names earlier. http://sources.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/gentoo-news.git;a=blob_plain;f=2013/2013-03-29-udev-upgrade/2013-03-29-udev-upgrade.en.txt;hb=HEAD But I'd prefer not to lead people to the path of renaming into namespace already taken... that can lead to issues. It sounds almost as hackish as the script that frees the whole namespace by using temporary names: https://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=336774 Still trying to decipher people if there is more to adjust in the news though, it doesn't have to be frozen as is, if you have better wording, please provide a patch against the current. Thanks :) - Samuli