On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 10:41 +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch> writes:
> >> I understand the 'legacy' concern but at the same time we don't want to
> >> have aftificial limitations too. Name change, in particular, doesn't
> >> happen 'under the hood' -- someone privileged enough needs to request
> >> the change.
> >> 
> >> Can you think of any particular real world scenarios which are broken by
> >> the change?
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > man 8 dhclient-script
> >
> > The interface name is passed in $interface to the scripts. Do we get
> > the old name or the new name? I suspect scripts are going to break if
> > they are given the old name, which no longer exists.
> Yes but why would anyone change interface name while dhclient-script is
> running? Things will also go wrong if you try bringing interface down
> during the run or do some other configuration, right? Running multiple
> configuration tools at the same moment is a bad idea, you never know
> what you're gonna end up with. 
> As I see it, checks in kernel we have are meant to protect kernel
> itself, not to disallow all user<->kernel interactions leading to
> imperfect result.
> (AFAIU) If we remove the check nothing is going to change: udev will
> still be renaming interfaces before bringing them up. In netvsc case
> users are not supposed to configure the VF interface at all, it just
> becomes a slave of netvsc interface.

Are we sending an event if device name is changed ?

If yes, your patch is fine.

If not, daemons would not be aware the need to refresh their view of the

Reply via email to