Re: OT(?) -- Should the net.agent script cause "ifup lo" to be run?

[David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>]

>>>> In the 2.5
>>>> kernels it might be good to make all network interfaces
>>>> fit into a common initialization model.
>     ...
> Please clarify. What I'm saying is that PPP is so fundamentally different
> that you *can't* fit it into the ethernet model, even in a 2.5 framework,
> unless you're willing to redesign the whole kernel/pppd/dialer interaction,
> which would be a lot of code and would probably meet with a lot of
> resistance.

I didn't say turn PPP into Ethernet, or vice versa, but find the
commonality.  It's there somewhere in the OS ... if some parts
of the initialization model are only available implicitly by using
interface names (which can change, someone said) then it should
be made explicit, so tools can work without heuristics.  (OK,
some folk really like heuristics there, I don't.)  If the model is
needlessly complex, simplify it.

For one example, it can be argued that it's wrong for the kernel
to report that "ppp0" has been "registered".  It's in some config
file somewhere, "registered" but just not known to the kernel.
Maybe "register" is the wrong network hotplug event to report
in such a case, hmm?

- Dave



_______________________________________________
Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list  http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net
Linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel