[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090521.133304.10307675.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 13:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de
Cc: linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-hotplug@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, fenlason@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ieee1394: eth1394: use "firewire%d" instead of "eth%d"
as interface name
From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 22:13:50 +0200
> But I mildly disagree with the notion that the kernel can't start off
> with more qualification of the names than merely ensuring their
> uniqueness. Or the other way around: Even an entirely meaningless
> prefix would be better than "eth..", or no prefix if that's possible,
> because eth suspiciously sounds like Ethernet with which the misnamed
> RFC 2734 driver eth1394 has very little to do.
Even the driver source file is named "ethXXX"! All of the macros
in the driver are named ETH*. The eth1394hdr looks eerily similar
to a real ethernet header except that it lacks a source MAC
address. It's addressing information plus a 16-bit (wow, why that
size huh?) protocol field. A lot like ethernet.
At the very least, it's related and similar. So there is really
nothing inappropriate about eth* naming.
> However, how mild my disagreement is should be apparent from the fact
> that I didn't bother to suggest changing it before now, in 2009. :-)
You have more to lose by changing this now (breaking existing systems,
and yes I did see the hack workaround you posted) instead of fixing
userspace to make whatever indications you deem appropriate.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists