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

[Bill Nottingham <notting@redhat.com>]

David Brownell (david-b@pacbell.net) said: 
> > 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?

Maybe. It technically is a registration event, though, in that's
when the device is first registered. I guess the distinction
is that a ppp device is registered as *part* of the process of
bringing it up. Ethernet devices aren't.

Bill


_______________________________________________
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