On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, Greg KH wrote: > No, it has been determined a long time ago that network naming things > like this are to be done in userspace. It's an argument that has come > and gone many years ago, sorry. See all of the wonderful, and simple, > tools we have today in userspace to handle this type of thing. Distros > can use them how ever they see fit, and even better, users can configure > them! That means they don't have to rebuild their kernels, which is a > bit unreasonable, don't you think? ... > Perhaps we should just always name these things 'eth%d'? Oh wait, as it > really is a USB device, they are supposed to be called 'usb%d' as > determined (again) a long time ago. > > If a distro/board manufacturer wants to hide the fact that this really > is a usb device by renaming it to eth0, then again, it can. But don't > force the kernel to have that policy in it. This argument does sound contradictory. If network interface naming should be left entirely up to userspace, then why doesn't the kernel always generate names of the form "eth%d"? Why not rip all that stuff about "usb%d" or "wlan%d" out of the driver entirely? (Apart from the fact that this would be a user-visible change in kernel policy and would break a large number of systems...) Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
