Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) schreef op 12-04-16 12:46: > On 04/12/2016 02:26 AM, Xen wrote: >> That is completely nonsensical because it would imply that some network >> device could be initialized 2 hours after the system had booted. > > Greg KH is completely correct -- that can totally happen.
If that happens you have worse problems than a renumber of network device, I'm sure you'd agree. In any case if you have a solution of hotpluggable devices, and these devices can appear anywhere in that biosdev tree, then yes mapping it to a linear set of lists might be problematic. You would need to separate hotplug vs non-hotplug. But thus far, I have demonstrated to myself that removing a non-hotplug device defeats the biosdev scheme. I cannot know at this point whether worse stuff does not happen to biosdev if you remove e.g. Thunderbolt ethernet devices. So I am not really in the position to decide or even say much about that. Use some common sense. Most of the rebuttals I get here are stuff you, yourself, are capable of solving. > But it's clear that rational, calm, evidence-based arguments aren't > swaying you. If hotplugging a device can change PCI numbers, then there is nothing rational about it. You have defeated yourself already. The PCI device is supposed to be geographical location but it changes depending on number of devices present (at least on my system). That means on my system the biosdev system behaves as the thing that I have proposed, with the exception and difference that although PCI numbers would change (do change), the resulting ethernetX networking list, would not. So for MY system my solution would work whereas your current (??) system doesn't. If you consider that irrational arguments, then I consider you a turd person. I could go and test on on the other 2 systems currently present in my house, one would require booting a live DVD, the other would require turning on diosdev in a Debian 8 system. Both are rather current. The scheme I did propose would solve the kernel reordering problem. You say or imply that some network device present-at-boot can take 2 hours to be recognised by the kernel. In that case you have worse problems than a reordering of numbers. What are you really solving here. The arbitariness in detection would be solved by my scheme by assuming that the normal period of detecting the hardware happens before the hardware is getting used. But yes, the thing I proposed is unstable if devices can get removed and those devices end up in a list you depend on. Just like when I remove a card from my computer. Because if those removable devices end up in the PCI list and are used in the enpXsY notation, you have the same problem in biosdev. So you have two situations: * If things can change order because of hotplugging, don't use a condensed iteration scheme like I proposed * (Don't use a condensed numbering scheme anyway for things that can appear/disappear due to user intervention) Maybe you think all devices fit into the category of things that can appear/disappear. However currently for me, biosdev renumbers these, while my scheme wouldn't. The second situation is: * Things that cannot change (biosdev) order would benefit from a scheme that just condenses them. Are you saying that in our current day life, everything is now up in the water? Thunderbolt can randomly change PCI numbers on the fly. A hardware (onboard) networking device can suddenly pop out of nowhere 2 hours down the road reordering a (live) system. Of course all of that can be solved with a little engineering, it depends on what you want. Does make the solution more complex. I'm not sure all of you are telling me the truth though. > So I'll try asking a question instead: > > 1. Why don't you follow the documented procedure to disable the feature > you hate? What's it with posting on the list repeatedly about it? Are you stupid? > 2. The new netdev naming system has made the lives of many people much > better (me included). Why should /your/ preference -- which would > instantly make us all worse off -- become the new default, over our > well-served needs? Counter question: why do you think your needs are well served, but anothers aren't? Who are these many people? Who do you think you represent? Who are you working for? And in case you didn't notice I tried to come up with something that wouldn't ruin the boot-after-boot stability (and I think I have) although I didn't know that "hotplugging" is really the crux of the issue here. So why don't you explain how it has made your life better and what scenario you have, instead? What kind of life do you have, that you couldn't solve with fixed MAC addresses, (for instance) that got so much better now? What corner case individual are you? Why don't you explain where you are coming from before you make such allegations. You do not creatively evaluate, but only assault. Perhaps you yourself can come up with something that would actually fix your problem without having this tree of names for everything. This tree of names that might very well change if you plug in some Thunderbolt device prior to boot depending on how they have provisioned it. I still don't see the advantages of the current system except for a select few who don't care. What happens to everyone else. You claim I do not care about you. False. You do not care about me. I try to come up with something that works for you. You only attack it, and call it false. You don't do any thinking yourself, except as a way to refute something. Come up with something yourself then. I'm sure you can do it. Your statements about me come down the the phrase of "Let them eat cake". In that sense of "my needs are now served, if it costs someone else, that's okay enough for me". So your statements fall along the line of "why don't you spend efforts on behalf of me?" Again to the original thing: if spending effort is so easy for you (as you say it is for me): why don't you make biosdev an opt-in thing??? Spending effort is easy right? Then go and do it for every system you run. I am sure you can do it. You are the minority anyway (if we discount hotplugging perhaps). It's just that this minority seems to be in charge in such projects, and directs its course. They have corporate clients that are more important than regular users. And that's the only thing it really comes down to as far as I can tell. Oh here is the quote I held back: "I know people are frustrated about gentrification happening in the city, but the reality is, we live in a free market society. The wealthy working people have earned their right to live in the city. They went out, got an education, work hard, and earned it. I shouldn’t have to worry about being accosted. I shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle, and despair of homeless people to and from my way to work every day." This was about San Fransico, where many people are pushed out of their houses because the influx of wealthy tech people raises the rents above levels that ordinary working class people can afford. I think this kindly summarizes the statement you just made about your well-served needs. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
