[lkml]   [2001]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
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.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.065 / U:0.796 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site