From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH] udev: create empty regular files to represent net interfaces Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:55:56 -0700 Message-ID: <20091029165556.GA9846@kroah.com> References: <20091016214024.GA10091@ldl.fc.hp.com> <20091022063619.GB6321@ldl.fc.hp.com> <20091027205551.GA31963@auslistsprd01.us.dell.com> <20091029131125.GA13809@auslistsprd01.us.dell.com> <20091029142554.GA16869@kroah.com> <1256834975.2827.63.camel@achroite> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Matt Domsch , Kay Sievers , dann frazier , linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org, Narendra_K@dell.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jordan_Hargrave@dell.com, Charles_Rose@dell.com To: Ben Hutchings Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1256834975.2827.63.camel@achroite> Sender: linux-hotplug-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 04:49:35PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > 3. Name assignment mechanism > Disks: kernel suggests a name; udev can assign any number > ???Net devices: kernel assigns a single name; udev can override it > > 4. Default name assignment policy > Disks: names disk by device path (id), label and UUID > ???Net devices: assigns arbitrary stable names per (MAC address, subtype) > > 5. Naming by users > Disks: user can identify by any method without having to choose on a > system-wide basis > Net devices: user must identify by single name; policy can be overridden > on a system-wide basis > > I fully understand the technical reasons for differences 3-5, but why > should users have to put up with it? That is because network devices are not referred to by /dev/ nodes where multiple symlinks would solve the naming problem. thanks, greg k-h