Le 24/12/2020 à 00:24, Antony Stone a écrit :
>> Or maybe the kernel is much faster than Eudev and it has the time to
>> create the interfaces faster than Eudev processes them.
> That sounds likely.
>
>> But for sure the mechanism worked in the past.
> I completely agree.
>
> As I said in m
On Wednesday 23 December 2020 at 23:41:58, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 23/12/2020 à 22:03, Antony Stone a écrit :
> > If the kernel decides A=eth1, B=eth2, C=eth0 then there's no way for udev
> > rules to rename them, because "File exists" (which should of course say
> > "Device name exists").
>
>
Le 23/12/2020 à 22:03, Antony Stone a écrit :
> If the kernel decides A=eth1, B=eth2, C=eth0 then there's no way for udev
> rules to rename them, because "File exists" (which should of course say
> "Device name exists").
This should not happen and did not happen in the past because the
inter
On 23/12/20 22:03, Antony Stone wrote:
If the kernel decides A=eth1, B=eth2, C=eth0 then there's no way for udev
rules to rename them, because "File exists" (which should of course say
"Device name exists").
Ok, i understand :)
Aitor.
___
Dng maili
On Wednesday 23 December 2020 at 21:56:09, aitor wrote:
> I can't understand the problem in the "Ethernet names revisited" thread,
The problem is when the kernel has decided to give your interfaces the names
you want them to have, but in the wrong order.
> because adding a new rule at the end (
Hi tito,
On 22/12/20 8:18, tito via Dng wrote:
Hi,
I would prefer not to use udev/eudev at all for it and
stick with my KISS approach.
Another way might be the use of vdev actions, but vdev is a work in
progress.
BTW I don't know how to achieve this with udev rules
could you be so kind and
