Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> (20:29:08) Tizer: Interface eth0 doesn't exist... why not?

Here's what we have today:

> These rules will always rename the network cards to "realtek" and 
> "intel", independently of the original numbering provided by the 
> kernel (i.e.: the original "eth0" and "eth1" interfaces will no
> longer exist, unless you put such "descriptive" names in the NAME
> key). Use the descriptive names from the Udev rules instead of "eth0"
> in the network interface configuration files below.

Perhaps we could say "naming" instead of "numbering" ("independently of
the original naming provided by the kernel")?

> (20:39:14) Tizer: ch 7.13.2 needs amending to the name used in the
> first section

Oh, that makes more sense.

Well, how about this then.  Recent udev versions (I think udev-095) can
handle renaming to eth0/eth1/whatever, because if the name is currently
in use, it'll rename it to something else, and then wait until the real
target name is *not* in use.  Older versions would fail if the kernel
assigned eth0 to one device and eth1 to another, then udev tried to swap
the names -- both renames would fail because the target device name
already existed.  But recent udevs will use a temporary name, then
sleep, then try again, until they succeed.

This means we can tell the user to create a stable rule, but they can
choose which device is eth0, which is eth1, etc.  So I'd suggest keeping
most of the text in 7.13.1, up until right after the "grep -H" that
finds the MAC addresses.  Then, something like:

> For each network card (but not for the loopback interface), decide 
> which eth* name to give it (eth0, eth1, etc.).  Then create Udev 
> rules similar to the following:

> cat > /etc/udev/rules.d/26-network.rules << "EOF"
> ACTION=="add", SUBSYSTEM=="net", DRIVER=="?*",
>     SYSFS{address}=="00:e0:4c:12:34:56", NAME="eth0"
> ACTION=="add", SUBSYSTEM=="net", DRIVER=="?*",
>     SYSFS{address}=="00:a0:c9:78:9a:bc", NAME="eth1"
> EOF

(With the appropriate lack of word-wrapping, of course.)

Then we should use the same names in the by-ID rules given below that,
and also fix the paragraph following.  Something like:

> These rules will always name the network cards "eth0" and "eth1", 
> independently of the (unpredictable) numbering provided by the
> kernel.

Sound good?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Reply via email to