Le 26/08/2017 à 14:14, Alessandro Selli a écrit :
My main subject was questionning the necessity of renaming network
interfaces (with my answer to the question). Since nobody argumented
that renaming was necessary, it is clear for me that renaming is a
feature invented to give more importance to Udev and isn't necessary at all.
Actually Adam Borowski did. Did you miss this message of his posted on
the 20th?
https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20170820.142726.04720725.en.html
Adam proposed that the renaming happens in a different namespace so
as to not clash with kernel naming new interfaces asynchronously. At
this stage of the thread, the necessity of interface renaming was not
yet questioned; at least this mail of Adam was not an opinion on wether
renaming was necessary/useful or not.
I suggested that renaming was not a necessity and the same method
could be used to refer to network interfaces as was used to refer to
partitions, since the problem of device name inpredictibility is exactly
the same.
Didier
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
