Indeed, speaking as the guy who wrote the two-step naming, the point was to make it possible to *swap* eth0 and eth1. If you're renaming from eth0 -> e1 and eth1 -> e0, you don't need the two steps, since the destination names cannot possible conflict. Scott On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 16:23, Matt Domsch <Matt_Domsch@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 12:45:04AM -0200, Piter PUNK wrote: >>> Matt Domsch wrote: > >> I need this in udev fairly quickly >> please. Some kind folks from IBM have been testing biosdevname with >> quad-port Intel SR-IOV-capable devices, and instantiating all the VFs, >> can easily have >100 eth* devices created in the kernel >> instantaneously. That bumps step 1 in the 2-step rename operation >> over IFNAMSIZ (eth100-pci2#3_62 is 16 chars). > > What is all this about? > > If biosdevname ever needs a two-step renaming, there is something > wrong. Two-step renaming happens only for conflicting names. We do not > want to support renaming in conflicting namespaces anymore. > > Also, we can not use hashes without checking for conflicts, it's > unlikely to happen, but we just don't do such hacks. Just use the > ifindex or whatever fits to be correct. > > Kay > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hotplug" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hotplug" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
