Someone else might reply here, but this is an OS issue rather than a driver 
issue and I'd suggest the Ubuntu forums for support on this issue.

Todd Fujinaka
Software Application Engineer
Networking Division (ND)
Intel Corporation
todd.fujin...@intel.com
(503) 712-4565


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Tsvika [mailto:mozloverin...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 1:35 AM
To: e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [E1000-devel] Intel i210 - igb information

Hi all,

Before addressing my question, below is my system configuration:

MB: SUPERMICRO X10SBA
Lan chip: IntelĀ® i210AT dual port GbE LAN -  two lan ports available on the 
board
OS: Ubuntu 16.04

As far as I know, the network naming mechanism has been changed since Ubuntu 
15.10 and its newer version, udev will follow the rule to assign the network 
interface name:

* Predictable network interface device names based on:
* - firmware/bios-provided index numbers for on-board devices

By using udevadm to get more information about these two lan ports ( detail log 
can be found in the attachment ):

1.  Two lan chips report the same index
*     ATTRS{index}=="1"*

2. Based on the udev, one network interface is named eno1 <---- the number "1" 
is because of reporting from index
    However, the other one is incorrect, it's interface name is "rename3"

3. The system boots very slow due to the race condition of network naming (
eno1 is taken and the other one keeps trying to get this and then finally gave 
up )

4. I revert back to the original network interface naming rule ( eth0, eth1... 
), the system boots as fast as I expect.

Question:

1. My understanding is that the index value should be unique. Since the board 
has two lan ports, the index value should not be the same. If i am wrong, 
please correct me.

2. I traced udev  and igb. The value reported by udevadm is obtained from 
*/sys/class/net/xxx*. I assume the information in */sys/class/net/xxx *is 
reported from igb driver.

3.  Hence, where is *ATTRS{index}=="1" *reported from, should it be Lan chip 
firmware or bios ?


Any discussion is appreciated.


Thanks



Paul

--
P.T
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
E1000-devel mailing list
E1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel
To learn more about Intel&#174; Ethernet, visit 
http://communities.intel.com/community/wired

Reply via email to