On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Glen Turner <gdt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 29/01/13 05:32, Lennart Poettering wrote: > >> We figured in this it's better to just stick to a single name for each >> iface, pick a good default scheme for it, and support alternative >> schemes. > > The whole point of biosdevname was to move from a ennumeration-centric > view or a bus-centric view of network interfaces to a user-centric view > -- where possible the interface name matched the name stamped on the > chassis. Many rackable systems have two or four ethernet interfaces in > essentially random order on the chassis, so moving away from the > bus-centric names to the user-visible names was a win. > > I don't understand why, having learned this lesson, we are moving from > ennumeration-centric names to bus-centric names, even where the system > itself has told us what the interface name actually is. If the firmware provides proper names (index numbers) for the devices, udev will use these names instead of the topology-based names. Kay -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
