Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756879AbXHBLrv (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Aug 2007 07:47:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756231AbXHBLrm (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Aug 2007 07:47:42 -0400 Received: from sovereign.computergmbh.de ([85.214.69.204]:33091 "EHLO sovereign.computergmbh.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756388AbXHBLrl (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Aug 2007 07:47:41 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 13:47:40 +0200 (CEST) From: Jan Engelhardt To: Herbert Rosmanith cc: Michael Tokarev , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: VIA EPIA EK: strange eth dev numbering In-Reply-To: <200708021056.l72Au722008603@wildsau.enemy.org> Message-ID: References: <200708021056.l72Au722008603@wildsau.enemy.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1932 Lines: 47 On Aug 2 2007 12:56, Herbert Rosmanith wrote: >> On Aug 2 2007 12:42, Herbert Rosmanith wrote: >> There never *were* days when eth0 remained eth0 across such changes. > >but there *were* days when eth0 was eth0, if the kernel reports it as such. >now there is no eth0 at all. if I see an "eth0" from dmesg, I expect >it to be present. Wait, you forget that something may change the name. That dmesg message from 1 second ago does not need to be valid anymore, just as anything else in this world. On Aug 2 2007 13:12, Herbert Rosmanith wrote: >> > cards around), eth0 would also suddenly become a different one. There never >> > *were* days when eth0 remained eth0 across such changes. >> >> but there *were* days when eth0 was eth0, if the kernel reports it as such. >> now there is no eth0 at all. if I see an "eth0" from dmesg, I expect >> it to be present. > >hm, well, a thought, maybe udev should report what is doing, like >printinig "renamed eth0 to eth2", or such. I think it once did with suse, but it does not right now. Worth fixing (yet I am no udev maintainer). >the problem with this device renaming in my case was that other software, >in particular dhcpcd, didnt get any lease, because (obviously?) dhcpcd >on the other hand _still_ seemed to look for eth0, and thus, after >booting, there was no network configured at all. So blame your distro for not integrating udev correctly with dhcp-client. I can only speak for suse, where you define BOOTPROTO=dhcp for an interface. Then, on /etc/init.d/network, every interface that has a configuration file gets run, so you never see what ethX udev picked for the day, but things still work. That's good^TM. Jan -- - 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/