Re: [RFC] New Driver Model for 2.5

Kai Henningsen
2001-10-20T18:22:53Z

tim@tjansen.de (Tim Jansen) wrote on 20.10.01 in <15ui2Y-05aCZcC@fmrl05.sul.t-online.com>:

> On Friday 19 October 2001 22:24, you wrote:

> > > Ok, but I think no one doubts that it is a bad idea to assign ethX
> > > semi-randomly. Basically this is the same problem as with device files,
> > > only in a different namespace.
> > So is that in favor of changing the current ethX naming convention or not?
>
> I don't know. You don't need a device file for networking, but if there is
> some mechanism to allow stable names it would certainly be good to use it
> for network, too.

You need stable identifiers, but those identifiers don't need to be the
usual names, as long as you have a way to find out which identifier goes
with which name dynamically.

MfG Kai