On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:13:12 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2013-04-02, Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:31:10 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote: > > > >> In Flameyes blog, he showed an example of using udev rules pretty > >> much identical to the ones I already had, so I couldn't figure out > >> what was different (other than the default interface names, which > >> still aren't really predictable). > > > > They are totally predictable, > > As long as you know the PCI bus IDs of the slots, which board is > plugged into which slot, the PCI bus IDs of the USB controllers, and > which USB ports are connected to which controllers, and so on. For > most of us that equates to "not predictable". :)
We're at cross-purposes here. You mentioned udev rules, which I took to mean user-installed rules in /etc/udev. The names udev comes up with in the absence of any rules are not completely predictable, nor persistent. [snip more cross-purpose confusion] > > The simplest solution is to do what the news item suggests, rename > > the persistent-net rules file > > Why does the file need to be renamed? > > and rename the interfaces within it to not clash with the kernel. > > So the kernel is still using the names eth[0-n]? And there's a race > condition if I use the names eth[0-n] in my rules? Same as before? Have you read the news item? It explains why the file should be renamed and also why you should change the names in the rules to not use ethN. -- Neil Bothwick My Go this amn keyboar oesn't have any 's.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
