Re: [PATCH] udev: create empty regular files to represent

[dann frazier <dannf@dannf.org>]

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:23:57PM +0530, Narendra_K@Dell.com wrote:
> 
> >> >There are two issues, which really seem distinct to me.
> >> >
> >> >Users expect eth0 to map to first-onboard-nic. That's an installer 
> >> >issue (since the BIOS can already export this info) and I 
> >agree that 
> >> >if we want to "fix" that, we should fix it there.
> >> >
> >> 
> >> I agree that installers have to be fixed in the sense that 
> >they can be 
> >> told to find the right interface. But, they expect determinism and 
> >> depend on "eth0 to map to first-onboard-nic". Installer is 
> >one of the 
> >> applications that is affected by this and needs user 
> >intervention, if 
> >> it is not told about the right interface. I discussed 
> >installer as it 
> >> is so much part of a user experience.
> >
> >Right, but couldn't the installer do the work of scanning the 
> >SMBIOS to figure out which nics are onboard, and reorder the 
> >'eth*' names such that these are first? This state could then 
> >be written out as udev rules so that they persist across reboots.
> >
> 
> I suppose, with udev loading modules, the rules generated at runtime
> could run into the problem of duplicate names, if names are reordered in
> the kernel namespace. (I.e the eth* namespace). Hence idea of an
> alternate namespace.

I don't see a risk of duplicate names - after all drivers are loaded,
the installer can take the names enumerated by the kernel, figure out
what it thinks a preferrable order is (i.e. by querying SMBIOS), then
change the kernel names/mac mapping appropriately. Where can a
duplicate name become an issue using this method?

-- 
dann frazier