On Thu, 24.01.13 22:28, Miloslav Trmač (mitr@xxxxxxxx) wrote: > > What concerns would people have with this naming? Off the top of my head: > > > > - wwan devices aren't always discoverable (they can show up as ethernet) > > - devices that biosdevname considers emX via enumeration/guessing would > > now have enpXsY, which could be considered 'uglier' > > Do we actually need to change the naming of onboard devices from emN ? One problem with biosdevname is that it uses different naming schemes in the same namespace. For us, predictability means that by looking at the lspci or DMI information of your card you can deterministically figure out how your network interface is going to be named, but also the reverse, that by looking at an interface name you can figure out where precisely the data came from. With biosdevname' scheme you cannot do that as using different enumeration within the same namespace might result in name clashes, and hence we think it's a good idea to stay away from the old namespace. > I wouldn't be surprised to see em1 hardcoded the same way eth0 used > to be hardcoded. Getting rid of the type-dependent prefix would also > resolve the wwan concern. On upgrades biosdevname would stay installed, so if the old name is hardcoded it would still apply fine. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
