[gentoo-dev] Re: Request of news item review: 2013-03-29-udev-predictable-network-interface-names.en.txt

["Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg)" <nunojsilva@ist.utl.pt>]

On 2013-03-29, Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@flameeyes.eu> 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.


-- 
Nuno Silva (aka njsg)
http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/