On 04/06/2013 11:06 PM, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2013-04-06, Pandu Poluan <pa...@poluan.info> wrote: > >> Ahhh... I think now I understand... >> >> So. Here's my summarization of the situation: >> >> * The ethX naming can change, i.e., the interfaces can get out of order >> * So, to fix this, udev decided to use the physical attachment points of >> the NIC in driving a persistent name, a name that will be identical across >> boots as long as there is no hardware change >> * In doing so, it also frees the 'traditional' ethX names to be used >> * If one wants, one can still 'rename' the NICs to the 'traditional' names >> using the 70-*.rules script > > Wha? I swear I was told that you could not reliably name the > iterfaces eth[0-n] using udev rules (which is what I've always done > without problems) because of "race conditions". So I changed over to > net[0-n] on one machine, and was planning on doing so on the others > soon. > > Can we still use udev rules to name interfaces eth[0-n] or not? >
If and only if there is no device named ethN when you go to name a device ethN. That's what's meant by 'reliably'.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
