Yep, names like p4p1 are soooo much better than eth0 :-(

[Marko Vojinovic]

On Tuesday 18 October 2011 00:57:42 jdow wrote:
> On 2011/10/17 06:50, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> > On Monday 17 October 2011 02:34:47 Tom Horsley wrote:
> >> On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:20:35 -0500
> >> 
> >> Chris Adams wrote:
> >>> Define "first".  Hint: that's not a solvable problem on general PC
> >>> hardware (thus, biosdevname).  There have been many problems over the
> >>> years where the ordering changed on some hardware from one kernel
> >>> release to the next.
> >> 
> >> Well, either biosdevname is also a nonsolvable problem, or a
> >> perfectly wonderful definition of "first" is simply "The
> >> lexicographic ordering of the biosdevname generated name strings".
> > 
> > Suppose you have a server with a two-port ethernet PCI card plugged into
> > the second PCI slot on the motherboard. The biosdevname names are p2p1
> > and p2p2. By your definition, they would map to eth0 and eth1, right?
> > 
> > Now, at some point you decide to upgrade your hardware by adding an
> > aditional two-port ethernet card in PCI slot 1. The biosdevname names
> > for the new ports are p1p1 and p1p2, while p2p1 and p2p2 stay the same,
> > as before. But this time, according to your proposal, eth0 and eth1
> > would not correspond to p2p1 and p2p2, but to the new ports, p1p1 and
> > p1p2, while the p2p1 and p2p2 would be renamed eth2 and eth3. Assuming
> > that you plug all the cables back to their original positions, every
> > script that refers to eth0 and eth1 is now broken, while every script
> > that refers to p2p1 and p2p2 still works.
> > 
> > IIUC, this is one of the problems that biosdevname is meant to fix. The
> > concept of physical location is a well-defined one, while the concept of
> > linearly ordered (lexicographically or otherwise) location is
> > ill-defined. Hence the names are given according to the physial location
> > rather than to any particular ordering.
> 
> There is something wrong with ethp2p3? What KIND of device is easier to
> fathom if it is part of the name, ya know.

Well, I agree that would indeed be more descriptive. :-) Feel free to file a 
RFE if you think you can build a good case for it. ;-)

Best, :-)
Marko