Re: [systemd-devel] F19 network device naming
On 10/23/2013 07:02 PM, Nicholas Majeran wrote: I would expect to see enp65s0f0 and enp65s0f1, like the e1000e. Read the source luke [1]... JBG 1. http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/src/udev/udev-builtin-net_id.c#n20 ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] F19 network device naming
Thanks. I did read the comments in that source before sending a message to the mailing list -- but I am still unclear why the SolarFlare card doesn't behave like the e1000e, and adds a device to the end of the devname. On Oct 24, 2013, at 2:56 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/23/2013 07:02 PM, Nicholas Majeran wrote: I would expect to see enp65s0f0 and enp65s0f1, like the e1000e. Read the source luke [1]... JBG 1. http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/src/udev/udev-builtin-net_id.c#n20 ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] F19 network device naming
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Nicholas Majeran nmaje...@suntradingllc.com wrote: I have recently installed Fedora 19 on a Dell R620. I'm trying to grok the new device naming scheme put forth in systemd, but the results are a bit confusing. This box has four onboard ports -- those are all correctly labelled as eno[1-4]. However, when I begin to add in PCIe cards, I don't see what I would expect. I've installed two PCIe cards: one two-port Intel e1000e and one two port SolarFlare Performa card. [root@sunelkvm6 ~]# ethtool -i enp65s0f0 driver: sfc version: 3.2 firmware-version: 3.2.2.6124 bus-info: :41:00.0 supports-statistics: yes supports-test: yes supports-eeprom-access: no supports-register-dump: yes supports-priv-flags: no [root@sunelkvm6 ~]# ethtool -i enp65s0f1d1 driver: sfc version: 3.2 firmware-version: 3.2.2.6124 bus-info: :41:00.1 supports-statistics: yes supports-test: yes supports-eeprom-access: no supports-register-dump: yes supports-priv-flags: no I would expect to see enp65s0f0 and enp65s0f1, like the e1000e. Yeah, that would be right. I guess someone messed up the kernel driver and exports dev_id == 1 where it needs to be 0. dev_id in the kernel is supposed to count upwards for netdevs of the *same* device(pci) parent, not for netdevs from separate devices. You can check with: $ grep . /sys/class/net/*/dev_id Kay ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] F19 network device naming
Yep, that's definitely the case here: [root@sunelkvm6 ~]# grep . /sys/class/net/*/dev_id /sys/class/net/eno1/dev_id:0x0 /sys/class/net/eno2/dev_id:0x0 /sys/class/net/eno3/dev_id:0x0 /sys/class/net/eno4/dev_id:0x0 /sys/class/net/enp4s0f0/dev_id:0x0 /sys/class/net/enp4s0f1/dev_id:0x0 /sys/class/net/enp65s0f0/dev_id:0x0 /sys/class/net/enp65s0f1d1/dev_id:0x1 /sys/class/net/lo/dev_id:0x0 Thanks for the pointer. As far as correcting this, should I contact the maintainer of the sfc driver? Thanks. - Original Message - From: Kay Sievers k...@vrfy.org To: Nicholas Majeran nmaje...@suntradingllc.com Cc: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:03:48 AM Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] F19 network device naming On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Nicholas Majeran nmaje...@suntradingllc.com wrote: I have recently installed Fedora 19 on a Dell R620. I'm trying to grok the new device naming scheme put forth in systemd, but the results are a bit confusing. This box has four onboard ports -- those are all correctly labelled as eno[1-4]. However, when I begin to add in PCIe cards, I don't see what I would expect. I've installed two PCIe cards: one two-port Intel e1000e and one two port SolarFlare Performa card. [root@sunelkvm6 ~]# ethtool -i enp65s0f0 driver: sfc version: 3.2 firmware-version: 3.2.2.6124 bus-info: :41:00.0 supports-statistics: yes supports-test: yes supports-eeprom-access: no supports-register-dump: yes supports-priv-flags: no [root@sunelkvm6 ~]# ethtool -i enp65s0f1d1 driver: sfc version: 3.2 firmware-version: 3.2.2.6124 bus-info: :41:00.1 supports-statistics: yes supports-test: yes supports-eeprom-access: no supports-register-dump: yes supports-priv-flags: no I would expect to see enp65s0f0 and enp65s0f1, like the e1000e. Yeah, that would be right. I guess someone messed up the kernel driver and exports dev_id == 1 where it needs to be 0. dev_id in the kernel is supposed to count upwards for netdevs of the *same* device(pci) parent, not for netdevs from separate devices. You can check with: $ grep . /sys/class/net/*/dev_id Kay ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] F19 network device naming
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Nicholas Majeran nmaje...@suntradingllc.com wrote: /sys/class/net/enp65s0f0/dev_id:0x0 /sys/class/net/enp65s0f1d1/dev_id:0x1 /sys/class/net/lo/dev_id:0x0 Thanks for the pointer. As far as correcting this, should I contact the maintainer of the sfc driver? Yes, the kernel should be fixed. The driver should start counting the dev_id at 0, for every individual device (a separate pci function is a device), not per driver. Thanks, Kay ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
[systemd-devel] F19 network device naming
Hello: I have recently installed Fedora 19 on a Dell R620. I'm trying to grok the new device naming scheme put forth in systemd, but the results are a bit confusing. This box has four onboard ports -- those are all correctly labelled as eno[1-4]. However, when I begin to add in PCIe cards, I don't see what I would expect. I've installed two PCIe cards: one two-port Intel e1000e and one two port SolarFlare Performa card. The e1000e works like I would expect: [root@s ~]# ethtool -i enp4s0f0 driver: e1000e version: 2.3.2-k firmware-version: 5.6-2 bus-info: :04:00.0 supports-statistics: yes supports-test: yes supports-eeprom-access: yes supports-register-dump: yes supports-priv-flags: no [root@s ~]# ethtool -i enp4s0f1 driver: e1000e version: 2.3.2-k firmware-version: 5.6-2 bus-info: :04:00.1 supports-statistics: yes supports-test: yes supports-eeprom-access: yes supports-register-dump: yes supports-priv-flags: no But, the SolarFlare produces an additional device along with the additional function: [root@sunelkvm6 ~]# ethtool -i enp65s0f0 driver: sfc version: 3.2 firmware-version: 3.2.2.6124 bus-info: :41:00.0 supports-statistics: yes supports-test: yes supports-eeprom-access: no supports-register-dump: yes supports-priv-flags: no [root@sunelkvm6 ~]# ethtool -i enp65s0f1d1 driver: sfc version: 3.2 firmware-version: 3.2.2.6124 bus-info: :41:00.1 supports-statistics: yes supports-test: yes supports-eeprom-access: no supports-register-dump: yes supports-priv-flags: no I would expect to see enp65s0f0 and enp65s0f1, like the e1000e. Also, what constitutes a function and a device? I've read the decoder ring linked from: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/PredictableNetworkInterfaceNames and I wasn't able to (easily) ascertain that. Thanks. ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
