From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Harald Hoyer Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] Avoid generating udev rules for vlan interface Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 11:32:45 +0200 Message-ID: <4FBB5D3D.2080101@redhat.com> References: <1337591686-31875-1-git-send-email-amwang@redhat.com> <1337591686-31875-3-git-send-email-amwang@redhat.com> <4FBA09F7.4030003@redhat.com> <4FBA0B8D.1070708@gmail.com> <4FBA0E7E.1070004@redhat.com> <4FBA1698.3090006@gmail.com> <4FBA26A1.6010109@redhat.com> <4FBAEF49.60108@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4FBAEF49.60108-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: initramfs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Cong Wang Cc: Cong Wang , initramfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Dave Young Am 22.05.2012 03:43, schrieb Cong Wang: > On 05/21/2012 07:27 PM, Harald Hoyer wrote:! >> >> it would skip eth0.2, because its DEVPATH contains "virtual" and the rule is >> never matched > > When eth0.2 comes up, yes. > > When eth0 comes up, no, both lines will be applied to eth0 and the final result > is that eth0 will be renamed to eth0.2. > > And eth0 comes up before eth0.2, so... well, but you wouldn't specify "ifname=" on the kernel command line for eth0.2, would you?