On May 26, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > It does not fit my idea of "well enough", quite the opposite. The most > important, it does not really solve a problem, but creates a lot of > new ones. My experience is clearly different, so looks like our respective user bases have different needs. It almost always solves the problem of interface names not changing after a reboot and breaking everything. > You race against the kernel creating new interfaces, while we are in > progress renaming devices. A game we can never win. We actually have > real bugs for that, and can't solve them properly ever. Renaming stuff > in the same namespace without global locks is never going to work, > hence we need to stop pretending we can. Again, it has worked well enough for my users for the last 5 years so it cannot be so much broken. > A said earlier, it was a mistake to ever try to do *automatic* rule > creation. We are absolutely sure not, that it was a mistake and we > will fix it by not continuing to do that. While it may not cover all cases it still beats all the existing alternatives. I will be ready to reconsider my position when new software will appear to handle the currently supported cases. > When we get there, it will no longer be part of udev, deleted from the > sources. It was a mistake to make a promise we can't deliver. There > will be still infrastructure, the mechanics to rename and manage > interfaces, but there will be no policy to execute it by default, no > rules creator running at hotplug time. I can continue maintaining the scripts in my tree as long as it will be needed, but removing support for renaming interfaces in the same namespace (which, again, works fine for all my users) will be seriously inconvenient. -- ciao, Marco -- 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
