Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 8 Jan 2001 07:26:34 +0100 | From | Andi Kleen <> |
| |
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/
|  |