On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:42:03 -0700 Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/15/2013 08:14 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 15.08.2013 16:53, schrieb Ben Greear: > >> On 08/15/2013 07:18 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > >>> Am 15.08.2013 16:05, schrieb Ben Greear: > >>>> > >>>> Yes, and I considered it, but I do not want my networks named > >>>> like that. I've been using ethX in my application and products > >>>> for more than a decade, and do not want to change the naming > >>>> scheme if at all possible. [snip] > >>>> I understand why the names come up jumbled on bootup, but there > >>>> is no excuse for udev not being able to properly rename them as > >>>> requested > >>> > >>> the kernel may also rename the devices as they come up > >>> if kernel want make one nic to eth1 and udev at the same time > >>> another one -> collision > >> > >> That's fine. Udev can just detect the collision and try again, > >> potentially moving the other one to a new name. That is what it > >> has done for years, in between bugs that caused eth0.rename > >> devices to be left lying around. > > > > well complain at the udev/systemd-guys and the ones before who came > > up with "biosdevname" you know that, i know that, you asked, i gave > > you an answer more can hardly do a *user* in this case > > I opened a bug against udev..will see if it gets any response. Bugzilla link please? Btw, I doubt that you'll be taken seriously enough. I can bet that the devs are going to argue like this: if your software makes explicit use of the "eth#" NIC naming, it is broken to begin with. Fix your software, and that will remove the need for your complaint. I remember seeing this argument before --- this was one of the reasons why the biosdevname NIC names were designed as "p#p#" and "em#", while ignoring the traditional "eth" naming. I cannot find any of the links now, but all discussions were basically like this: User: Why this stupid "p#p#" numbering scheme? Couldn't you use "eth#" instead? Dev: There is no way to name the NIC's in a linear way, so "eth#" names are unsuitable. User: But can't you at least make aliases from "p#p#" to "eth#" in udev? Dev: There is no way to do that uniquely either, so we won't do it. User: But my firewall rules are all written up using "eth#" names, and now they are broken! Dev: If your firewall rules made explicit usage of "eth#", they were broken to begin with. You should fix the rules, rather than insist on using "eth#". User: How come my firewall rules were broken to begin with? They worked! Dev: They worked by accident, because you didn't happen to experience any race conditions in naming the NIC's. But they were broken nevertheless. So I basically expect that you'll be told to fix your software, so that it doesn't use "eth#" names. If it is important for your software to know which NIC is which, use biosdevname and "p#p#" naming. And bug will be closed WONTFIX. Sorry. Best, :-) Marko -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
