On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 05:03:17PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > 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...) I think that is the only reason it is sticking around. thanks, greg k-h -- 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
