I like the idea of being able to separate the On-Board NICs from the Add-In NICS, but would like to suggest using names like gb1, gb2, gb3, gb4 to match the labels on the back of servers. I find cable/network technicians get confused, since hardware labels ports starting at 1, but software labels ports starting at 0. It would be nice to have them match.
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matt Domsch Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 11:22 AM To: Stroller Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Consistent Network Device Naming for LOMs coming... On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 03:16:11PM +0000, Stroller wrote: > 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. Here are the slides and video from LPC. The slides note all the previous rejected proposals... http://linux.dell.com/files/presentations/Linux_Plumbers_Conf_2010/matt- domsch-network-device-naming.pdf http://linux.dell.com/files/presentations/Linux_Plumbers_Conf_2010/matt- domsch-network-device-naming.ogg -- Matt Domsch Technology Strategist Dell | Office of the CTO _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
