On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:36:56 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > It is a bit of a the chicken or the egg situation ;) But users can > > just blacklist, too. Anyway, I think this is far better than module > > parameters > > Sorry I'm a bit confused. What is better than what? I mean that blacklist net_failover or module param to disable net_failover and handle in user space are better than trying to solve the renaming at kernel level (either by adding module params that make the kernel rename devices or letting user space change names of running devices if they are slaves). > > for twiddling kernel-based interface naming policy.. :S > > I see your point. But my point is slave names don't really matter, only > master name matters. So I am not sure there's any policy worth talking > about here. Oh yes, I don't disagree with you, but others seems to want to rename the auto-bonded lower devices. Which can be done trivially if it was a daemon in user space instantiating the auto-bond. We are just providing a basic version of auto-bonding in the kernel. If there are extra requirements on policy, or naming - the whole thing is better solved in user space. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
