From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Tourrilhes Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6 NET] Device name changing via rtnetlink Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 13:13:02 -0700 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20040910201302.GA16556@bougret.hpl.hp.com> References: <20040910195003.GA13912@bougret.hpl.hp.com> <20040910200644.GJ20088@postel.suug.ch> Reply-To: jt@hpl.hp.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Thomas Graf Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040910200644.GJ20088@postel.suug.ch> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 10:06:44PM +0200, Thomas Graf wrote: > * Jean Tourrilhes <20040910195003.GA13912@bougret.hpl.hp.com> 2004-09-10 12:50 > > Thomas Graf wrote : > > > > > > Allows changing of device name via rtnetlink. Last bit needed to do full > > > link configuration via rtnetlink. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Graf > > > > This does not work, because you don't return the new name to > > user space. If the new name is a pattern, such as "eth%d" or "wlan%d", > > you absolutely need to return the new instanciated device name to user > > space so that userspace doesn't loose track of the device. > > The ifindex stays the same, therefore the user space application can > simply dump the link list and fetch the new interface name. It's so simple to return the new name, so why not do it ? There is no need to make applications more complex. > It would > theoretically be possible to provide the new name via an ACK but > this would break the RFC. What do you mean, break the RFC ? Jean