lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 07:12:09PM +1300, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 06:32:14AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> I think it would be better to keep it. The ifa based alias
> interface emulation adds minor overhead (currently it's only a
> few lines of code, assuming we need named if addresses for other
> reasons too, which we do) and removing it it would break a lot of
> configuration scripts etc., for no really good gain.
>
> It's ugly and deceptive -- eth0:0 is _not_ a separate device to eth0,
> so why pretend it is?

Who says that it names a device? It names interfaces.
There are good reasons to have names for ifas, and I see no really good
convincing reasons not to put these names into the interface name space.
(in addition it'll save a lot of people a lot of grief)
When you're proposing a change that breaks thousands of configuration you
need a really good reason for it, and so far I cannot see one. It would
be different if the older way needed lots of hard to maintain fragile code in
the kernel, but that's really not the case.


-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.092 / U:0.448 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site