udev and varying naming of devices - is this still relevant?

xCrucialDudex · 2010-03-31 06:02:37

hey guys I've stumbled upon this statement in Wiki:

Since udev cannot ensure that one ethernet cards module will be loaded before the next, you will run into the case where your ethernet devices may switch names (i.e. eth0 may become eth1 and vise versa).

I wonder if this is still relevant. I have a router with three ethernet cards in it and so far I've not run into the problem mentioned. This is kind of crucial since I'm about to give the router out to people to set it up in production environment and if this issue is real it might turn out ugly one day

Last edited by xCrucialDudex (2010-03-31 07:04:55)

tavianator · 2010-03-31 06:06:16

Yes, although it hasn't affected me on any box I own. If it's consistent so far, then you should be fine, but a future update could easily change this. If writing a udev rule is easy compared to the potential pain of not doing it, then why not?

xCrucialDudex · 2010-03-31 06:11:38

tavianator wrote:

Yes, although it hasn't affected me on any box I own. If it's consistent so far, then you should be fine, but a future update could easily change this. If writing a udev rule is easy compared to the potential pain of not doing it, then why not?

Yeah, right.

Here's one more bit of information on this issue and recommendations on how to fix it.

Last edited by xCrucialDudex (2010-03-31 06:12:08)

tomk · 2010-03-31 06:42:27

Minor correction regarding your thread title - network cards are not block devices.

xCrucialDudex · 2010-03-31 07:04:23

tomk wrote:

Minor correction regarding your thread title - network cards are not block devices.

haha, yes, you're right.

ewaller · 2010-03-31 15:54:49

xCrucialDudex wrote:

Yeah, right.

I believe English is the only language (natural or programming) where two positives can make a negative.

xCrucialDudex · 2010-03-31 16:13:41

ewaller wrote:

xCrucialDudex wrote:
Yeah, right.
I believe English is the only language (natural or programming) where two positives can make a negative.

Erm.. okay, I don't really see how I made a negation there? Would you care to elaborate? I'm really curious now.

ewaller · 2010-03-31 17:58:43

xCrucialDudex wrote:

Erm.. okay, I don't really see how I made a negation there? Would you care to elaborate?

Sorry, it has to do with American English slang. "Yeah right" sort of means the same thing as "Good luck with that". It can be interpreted as a sarcastic response to something which one disagrees. I really could not tell if you were in agreement or disagreement.

The thing I find funny is that in some languages a double negative is a positive, while in other languages it is a negative. I find it ironic that, because of the silly slang, a double positive can be a negative in American English

xCrucialDudex · 2010-03-31 19:05:18

ewaller wrote:

xCrucialDudex wrote:
Erm.. okay, I don't really see how I made a negation there? Would you care to elaborate?
Sorry, it has to do with American English slang. "Yeah right" sort of means the same thing as "Good luck with that". It can be interpreted as a sarcastic response to something which one disagrees. I really could not tell if you were in agreement or disagreement.
The thing I find funny is that in some languages a double negative is a positive, while in other languages it is a negative. I find it ironic that, because of the silly slang, a double positive can be a negative in American English

Yeah, right

Arch Linux

#1 2010-03-31 06:02:37

udev and varying naming of devices - is this still relevant?

#2 2010-03-31 06:06:16

Re: udev and varying naming of devices - is this still relevant?

#3 2010-03-31 06:11:38

Re: udev and varying naming of devices - is this still relevant?

#4 2010-03-31 06:42:27

Re: udev and varying naming of devices - is this still relevant?

#5 2010-03-31 07:04:23

Re: udev and varying naming of devices - is this still relevant?

#6 2010-03-31 15:54:49

Re: udev and varying naming of devices - is this still relevant?

#7 2010-03-31 16:13:41

Re: udev and varying naming of devices - is this still relevant?

#8 2010-03-31 17:58:43

Re: udev and varying naming of devices - is this still relevant?

#9 2010-03-31 19:05:18

Re: udev and varying naming of devices - is this still relevant?

Board footer