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 B16EC138010 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:41:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6A61AE0BB6; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:40:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com (mail-wi0-f173.google.com [209.85.212.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EDE3E0B9D for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:40:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f173.google.com with SMTP id ez12so41827wid.6 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:40:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=NcBQYS1/BIT+rheFDq1oMmN4/mi+2VGdx1XJRKcm1xw=; b=oU2ys5KJImt1o9y/j3wfBy/LSpKFYOmyQpWSeRVFJG0LOEKDQm6HjhXKarK2lB1u4B 9UdmqB89GLwxkVLsU1MzBTJRk3bIK9JxDuijpGwtRRtLBSDzr/ejCCXaejRuYIScL+Gs plVzGGctsYsq9szGBZy7q7kjloFI0uf6jCQ65rkXPHPJMczWglE5bV1mmPrvUFEYD7Fq 8WR/WshonJxok8oSqkyk+lzCT9UkaZIdB5C1pVKC4y+rfAX3neDleCgGIbr9XF96aCg1 dbWkTbcDR8peGTkc19c9LyTWWC3rwFzPdxymCpjRecb8Tu7vPI9f7idyOMLA9ez5fwzs KC+Q== X-Received: by 10.180.182.36 with SMTP id eb4mr298663wic.8.1364575254799; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:40:54 -0700 (PDT) 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 Sender: markos.chandras@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.121.136 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:40:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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> From: Markos Chandras Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:40:34 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: T_fW7N_9FrkQRi-yKOM392_IVGM Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Request of news item review: 2013-03-29-udev-predictable-network-interface-names.en.txt To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b62292654ea4a04d912ef97 X-Archives-Salt: ca6d42c9-c63e-4c7d-ae99-6631d315a19f X-Archives-Hash: fa9299ea9475e5ba2b526f0d36a2f154 --047d7b62292654ea4a04d912ef97 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 29 March 2013 16:21, Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wro= te: > On 2013-03-29, Diego Elio Petten=C3=B2 wrote: > > On 29/03/2013 12:34, Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1=BB=85n wrote: > >> Diego Elio Petten=C3=B2 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 wit= h > > 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 deathforc= e > > 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. > > > -- > Nuno Silva (aka njsg) > http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/ > > > I sort of agree here. The news item is rather scary for people maintaining remote boxes. Couldn't we just preserve the old behavior with an opt-in for people who want to use this new feature? Or am I reading the message wrong? In my mind, the message says "either remove 70-* and setup 80-*" or your system will end up broken. --=20 Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang --047d7b62292654ea4a04d912ef97 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 29 March 2013 16:21, Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) <nun= ojsilva@ist.utl.pt> wrote:
On 2013-03-29, Diego Elio = Petten=C3=B2 <flameeyes@flamee= yes.eu> wrote:
> On 29/03/2013 12:34, Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1=BB=85n wrote:<= br> >> Diego Elio Petten=C3=B2 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 whic= h 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 m= ess up with
> it in userspace at all, no matter how many kernel changes happen, it&#= 39;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 deathfor= ce
> drivers come in mind as well.

IMHO this is really relevant. It is annoying seeing how many people g= o
"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*,<= br> 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 alrea= dy
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.


--
Nuno Silva (aka njsg)
http://njsg.sdf-eu.or= g/



I sort of agree he= re. The news item is rather scary for people maintaining remote boxes. Coul= dn't we just
preserve the old behavior with an opt-in f= or people who want to use this new feature? Or am I reading the message wro= ng?
In my mind, the message says "either remove 70-* and setup = 80-*" or your system will end up broken.

-- =
Regards,
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoar= ang
--047d7b62292654ea4a04d912ef97--