Messages in this thread |  | | From | Andrzej Krzysztofowicz <> | Subject | Re: LANANA: To Pending Device Number Registrants | Date | Tue, 15 May 2001 23:26:44 +0200 (CEST) |
| |
> On Tue, 15 May 2001, Jonathan Lundell wrote: > > > > > >Keep it informational. And NEVER EVER make it part of the design. > > > > What about: > > > > 1 (network domain). I have two network interfaces that I connect to > > two different network segments, eth0 & eth1; > > So? > > Informational. You can always ask what "eth0" and "eth1" are. > > There's another side to this: repeatability. A setup should be > _repeatable_.
It stops to be repetable unless you are able to define *which* interface become eg. eth0 after boot. Think of hotplug...
> This is what we have now. Network devices are called "eth0..N", and nobody ^^^^^^ Not true. I did. Once :)
> is complaining about the fact that the numbering is basically random. It > is _repeatable_ as long as you don't change your hardware setup, and the > numbering has effectively _nothing_ to do with "location".
Consider the following situation: - you have three ethernet adapters supported by a single driver; assume they are *significantly* different - you hotplug a spare adapter, supported by the same driver - your spare adapter become eth0 after reboot... - you need access to a NFS server on former eth2 during boot
How would you configure the system to boot regardless the spare adapter is plugged in or not?
> You don't say "oh, I have my network card in PCI bus #2, slot #3, > subfunction #1, so I should do 'ifconfig netp2s3f1'". Right?
ifconfig eth-00:20:12:34:ab:cd ?
I'd prefer using MAC address here, but it is also not good as MAC need not to be unique.
> The location of the device is _meaningless_.
Unfortunately sometimes it is. Rare cases. I used to hit one.
> So? Same deal. You don't have eth0..N, you have disk0..N. > > What's the problem? It's _repeatable_, in that as long as you don't change > your disks, they'll show up the same way. But the 0..N doesn't imply that > the disks are anywhere special.
Not good comparison. You can mount filesystems on disks by UUID. You should be independent on disk names then.
> Linux gets this _somewhat_ right. The /dev/sdxxx naming is correct (or, if > you look at only IDE devices, /dev/hdxxx). The problem is that we don't > have a unified namespace, so unlike eth0..N we do _not_ have a unified > namespace for disks.
Andrzej -- ======================================================================= Andrzej M. Krzysztofowicz ankry@mif.pg.gda.pl phone (48)(58) 347 14 61 Faculty of Applied Phys. & Math., Technical University of Gdansk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |