On 16/11/2010, at 2:54pm, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: >> ... >> Matt said the proposed solution for the kernel was to reserve N "slots" >> for on-board devices. >> I can sort-of understand why it was rejected. What value of N is good >> enough? 2? 4? ... >> Not to mention the non-linearity of ethN assignment that would result. >> Suppose N was 4. If you have a motherboard with 2 on-board NICs, then >> you'd have eth0 and eth1, but no eth2 or eth3. ... > > The N was not arbitrary and was derived from a definitive knowledge of how > many 'onboard' network interfaces exist in the system. It is available > to the OS via SMBIOS type 41 record. So there was not any discontinuity > b/w onboard ethN and add-in ethNs.
So can I ask why was the kernel patch rejected? Was this all done on the LKML, and can we find the discussion in the LKML archives? It sounds like we should maybe all be giving you guys at Dell credit for trying to do it right in the first place. Stroller. _______________________________________________ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list [email protected] https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
