From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Small Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use firmware provided index to register a network interface Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 07:34:20 +0100 Message-ID: <4C9AF4EC.7020408@seoss.co.uk> References: <20100922183137.GA7607@auslistsprd01.us.dell.com> <4C9A7E39.2020304@buttersideup.com> <20100922151645.649d3d7a@nehalam> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Narendra K , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, matt_domsch@dell.com, charles_rose@dell.com, jordan_hargrave@dell.com, vijay_nijhawan@dell.com To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100922151645.649d3d7a@nehalam> Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Stephen Hemminger wrote: >>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=125510301513312&w=2 >> Out of interest, that link says that doing it in usespace was rejected, >> but doesn't give any references... I'd be interested to know why this >> wasn't viable - since this seemed like the best fit at first glance - >> most people will never use this, so no need to grow their kernel size >> and complexity? >> >> > > This proposal was to ad changes into every application that > knows about network names (iproute, iptables, snmp, quagga, openswan, ...) > to do aliasing at the application layer. > OK, that's bonkers, but what I was refering to was the line in the linked post which said "Achieve the above in userspace only using udev" - which I assumed meant to do it once in a udev rename rule by adapting /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules , /lib/udev/write_net_rules etc. - which is what I've used to enforce this sort of convention myself from time to time. Tim. -- South East Open Source Solutions Limited Registered in England and Wales with company number 06134732. Registered Office: 2 Powell Gardens, Redhill, Surrey, RH1 1TQ VAT number: 900 6633 53 http://seoss.co.uk/ +44-(0)1273-808309