[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!

To: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!)
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 07:26:34 +0100
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, david@xxxxxxxxx, greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20010108191209.B4682@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from cw@xxxxxxxx on Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 07:12:09PM +1300
References: <20010107162905.B1804@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.10.10101070220410.4173-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010108011308.A2575@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200101071201.EAA01790@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010108063214.A29026@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010108191209.B4682@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 07:12:09PM +1300, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 06:32:14AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
>     I think it would be better to keep it. The ifa based alias
>     interface emulation adds minor overhead (currently it's only a
>     few lines of code, assuming we need named if addresses for other
>     reasons too, which we do) and removing it it would break a lot of
>     configuration scripts etc., for no really good gain.
> It's ugly and deceptive -- eth0:0 is _not_ a separate device to eth0,
> so why pretend it is?

Who says that it names a device? It names interfaces.
There are good reasons to have names for ifas, and I see no really good
convincing reasons not to put these names into the interface name space.
(in addition it'll save a lot of people a lot of grief) 
When you're proposing a change that breaks thousands of configuration you
need a really good reason for it, and so far I cannot see one. It would 
be different if the older way needed lots of hard to maintain fragile code in 
the kernel, but that's really not the case. 


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>