On 18.07.2022 08:57:21, Oliver Hartkopp wrote: > > What do the maintainers think of dropping the old "slcan" name, and > > just allowing this to be a normal canX device? These patches do bring > > it closer to that, after all. In this case, this name string magic > > could be dropped altogether. > > > > I'm fine with it in general. But we have to take into account that there > might be existing setups that still might use the slcan_attach or slcand > mechanic which will likely break after the kernel update. > > But in the end the slcan0 shows up everywhere - even in log files, etc. > > So we really should name it canX. When people really get in trouble with it, > they can rename the network interface name with the 'ip' tool ... Don't break user space! If you don't like slcanX use udev to give it a proper name. regards, Marc -- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
