On 2013-03-29, Diego Elio Pettenò <flamee...@flameeyes.eu> wrote: > On 29/03/2013 12:34, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: >> Diego Elio Pettenò schrieb: >>> > If my desktop only has one Ethernet interface, no matter how many kernel >>> > changes happen, it'll always be eth0. >> That was not true with the old persistent naming. One example which we >> encountered in #gentoo IRC was the split between e1000 and e1000e drivers >> which caused interfaces to change names. > > Okay let me re-qualify the statement: > > "If my desktop only has one Ethernet interface, and I don't mess up with > it in userspace at all, no matter how many kernel changes happen, it'll > always be eth0". > > Yes, the previous persistent rules for udev would have messed that one > up when e1000e got split, or if you switched between the > Broadcom-provided driver to the kernel one or vice-versa. The deathforce > drivers come in mind as well.
IMHO this is really relevant. It is annoying seeing how many people go "oh you *must not* use the old scheme, because it won't work". The new naming scheme does *not* prevent you from using eth0, users should really just be told they can *disable* udev rules (and told how to do it) if they are happy with the kernel name of their sole network card, instead of being told that they *must* upgrade to the new rules. The messages so far seem to imply that you can't have eth0. You *can*, but udev won't be able to do anything if the device appears as something else and there's already another eth0. If you don't already have eth0, the udev rules *will* work, even if your card is named in the eth namespace. The *only* thing that breaks is renaming network devices to names that are already in use inside the kernel namespaces. -- Nuno Silva (aka njsg) http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/
