lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 3/4] PLATFORM: Introduce async platform_data attach api
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 05:03:17PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > No, it has been determined a long time ago that network naming things
> > like this are to be done in userspace. It's an argument that has come
> > and gone many years ago, sorry. See all of the wonderful, and simple,
> > tools we have today in userspace to handle this type of thing. Distros
> > can use them how ever they see fit, and even better, users can configure
> > them! That means they don't have to rebuild their kernels, which is a
> > bit unreasonable, don't you think?
>
> ...
>
> > Perhaps we should just always name these things 'eth%d'? Oh wait, as it
> > really is a USB device, they are supposed to be called 'usb%d' as
> > determined (again) a long time ago.
> >
> > If a distro/board manufacturer wants to hide the fact that this really
> > is a usb device by renaming it to eth0, then again, it can. But don't
> > force the kernel to have that policy in it.
>
> This argument does sound contradictory. If network interface naming
> should be left entirely up to userspace, then why doesn't the kernel
> always generate names of the form "eth%d"? Why not rip all that stuff
> about "usb%d" or "wlan%d" out of the driver entirely?
>
> (Apart from the fact that this would be a user-visible change in kernel
> policy and would break a large number of systems...)

I think that is the only reason it is sticking around.

thanks,

greg k-h


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-14 22:19    [W:0.171 / U:0.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site