Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932168AbWIINHQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Sep 2006 09:07:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932166AbWIINHP (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Sep 2006 09:07:15 -0400 Received: from [88.208.93.65] ([88.208.93.65]:12307 "EHLO albireo.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932162AbWIINHN (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Sep 2006 09:07:13 -0400 Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 15:07:14 +0200 From: Martin Mares To: Matt Domsch Cc: Greg KH , torvalds@osdl.org, Andrew Morton , linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: State of the Linux PCI Subsystem for 2.6.18-rc6 Message-ID: References: <20060909081816.GA13058@kroah.com> <20060909125827.GA16084@lists.us.dell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060909125827.GA16084@lists.us.dell.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1989 Lines: 42 Hello! > Respectfully, With the current 2.6 development model (i.e. the lack of > a 2.7), how are we to address this kind of thing? I'd like to see it > fixed in all new distro releases that base on 2.6.18-2.6.19, and it'll be an > individual distro decision to apply to existing releases (somewhat > unlikely). I'm open to suggestions. Udev rules like what opensuse > use would keep the existing names constant, as would the Red Hat > ifcfg-eth* method, so at least those distro users are OK. We really > need this at install time to get the naming right in the first place. The problem is that there is nothing as a single "right". There exists no consistent definition of how should the ordering look like and the fact that 2.4 and 2.6 differ are just a consequence of that. >From the point of view of 2.4 users, the "right" definition is the one used by 2.4 kernels. >From the point of view of 2.6 users, the only right definition is the current one. For people installing Linux from scratch, it doesn't matter because neither definition has any advantage, both give unstable results when new devices are plugged in. Moreover, the depth-first order is probably a little bit more stable, because on-board buses usually have lower numbers than buses where hotpluggable devices live (e.g., cardbus), so newly plugged devices are nicely ordered after all built-in ones. If you want to have stable names, use udev, relying on any order is wrong as new devices can always appear anywhere. Have a nice fortnight -- Martin `MJ' Mares http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~mj/ Faculty of Math and Physics, Charles University, Prague, Czech Rep., Earth How an engineer writes a program: Start by debugging an empty file... - 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/