On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 03:03:08PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Scott Schmit wrote:
> Current:
> em1 -> enp2s0
That is expected, and actually the right thing to do. Udev cannot
apply such "it looks like it is embedded" heuristics for very
practical technical reasons. There is no reliable information about
that on the system, so this logic will break sooner or later.
There is also no sane way to share the namespace with the embedded
interface indices defined by the firmware. It should never have been
done by biosdevname that way.
> em2 -> eno1
> em3 -> eno2
Ouch, is that really the case? If that's what you see on your box,
then biosdevname would have "invented" its own numbers for the *fixed*
SMBIOS provided index numbers, and rebased them to something
different. That would be really weird.
This isn't a real life example, this was just an example of something I
could imagine happening that would screw people up, based on what I
thought I understood from the list (even your response to the first part
implies that some machines could have "real" embedded devices mixed with
"pseudo-embedded" devices, but your response to the second implies
otherwise, so I don't know what to make of that...).
Is there a program/script we can run that would tell us what the
interface names would be without biosdevname (without running the new
version of systemd on the box)? Not that that would tell me what to
expect for other people, but I suppose if a bunch of people looked at
what it did to their box(es) and somebody saw something surprising, they
could speak up. (Assuming they knew what "surprising" looked like...) :-)
--
Scott Schmit