[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Ethernet interface numbering in etch

On Mar 27, Nathanael Nerode <neroden@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> * Most machines have only one interface (If Debian is running on more routers 
> than workstations, obviously this would be wrong, but I doubt that's the case.)
Every laptop with wifi has more than one interface, and so does every
system with a firewire port.

> * Lots of hardware is crummy and needs to be replaced at least once in a box's 
> lifetime.
Most modern hardware actually has one or two built-in ethernet
interfaces, which makes hard to replace them.

> found.  The proposed solution at the top of thread is pretty good:
And as I explained, it is also wrong.
The single most annoying problem with udev is all the people who try to
fix without understanding how it works.

> To be more specific about how this would work, network interface naming would
> be a two-stage process, with all "new" interfaces delayed until after all "old" 
> interfaces were believed to be up.
Racy (and slow).

> Marco D'Itri wrote "Think harder about it and you will understand why this cannot 
> be tested in practice," but of course that's bullshit.  It's perfectly 
> implementable and testable -- for testing, the delay and timeout could be set 
Cool. Send a patch then. Less talk, more code.

> quite long.  It's not perfectly *reliable*, but it's just as
> reliable as anything which depends on udev "finishing" setting up /dev, and 
> we've been able to handle that (gobs and gobs of stuff depends on that, and 
> we've managed to live with it).
No, we worked around an obsolete model of the boot process by
implementing udevsettle, which makes it synchronous again.

> Implementation is complicated enough that I wouldn't ask anyone else to do it.
> (And it's easier to just work around it than to implement it myself.)
You almost fooled me, I sincerly believed for a few seconds that you
were ready to support your position with running code.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: