Return-path: Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.24]:42193 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751382AbXB0Rlv (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:41:51 -0500 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:41:08 -0800 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Jiri Benc Cc: Larry Finger , Pavel Roskin , Alex Davis , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, "John W. Linville" Subject: Re: Patch to allow specification of interface name prefix Message-ID: <20070227094108.11f4844f@freekitty> In-Reply-To: <20070227111644.784600be@logostar.upir.cz> References: <510326.55988.qm@web50211.mail.yahoo.com> <20070224233001.3ok4k0c00ksos4sw@webmail.spamcop.net> <45E112F7.9090908@lwfinger.net> <20070226150241.1b5b63b2@freekitty> <20070227111644.784600be@logostar.upir.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:16:44 +0100 Jiri Benc wrote: > [removed bcm43xx-dev list] > > On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:02:41 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > This was hashed out on netdev 2+ years ago and decided that both ethernet > > and wireless devices should show up as 'eth%d'. For inclusion d80211 needs to conform > > to existing mainline kernel practice. If this means breaking the expectation of older > > out of tree wireless support (ie madwifi), sorry. > > Decided? I remember just you and hch saying "all existing wireless drivers > do that, so everybody should". When pointing out that just two drivers do > that (I think ipw and prism) and everybody else use something different > (wlan%d most often) there was no reply. "ipw and one other driver do that > so everybody should" doesn't sound like a strong argument to me. Don't put too much stock in what I said. Really don't care about such a trivial matter as naming. Jeff and Christoph seem to care, I don't > Wireless devices need different handling (setting SSID, etc.) than Ethernet > ones. I think it's not so bad idea to show that difference by using a > different default name. Everybody else who is in some kind different from > Ethernet use different name than eth%d. I think we should conform to > existing mainline practice by using something different than eth%d too. As long as the tools work it shouldn't matter. There are some tools like irqbalance that seem to have in bred assumptions. A bigger issue for me would be getting NAPI to work right for wireless. -- Stephen Hemminger