On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 08:46:11PM +0530, Stroller wrote: > 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.
Please find the link to the netdev discussions on this here - http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=128518030400371&w=3 http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=128646170613973&w=3 The concern was related to the effect of this patch on existing names. The suggestions were to do this in user space. -- With regards, Narendra K _______________________________________________ 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
