[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DM6PR13MB3705D6F71A159185171319E3FC8E9@DM6PR13MB3705.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 01:40:30 +0000
From: Yinjun Zhang <yinjun.zhang@...igine.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Louis Peens <louis.peens@...igine.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
oss-drivers <oss-drivers@...igine.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 1/2] nfp: initialize netdev's dev_port with
correct id
On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 12:22:27 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 16:45:47 +0200 Louis Peens wrote:
> > In some customized scenario, `dev_port` is used to rename netdev
> > instead of `phys_port_name`, which requires to initialize it
> > correctly to get expected netdev name.
>
> What do you mean by "which requires to initialize it correctly to get
> expected netdev name." ?
I mean it cannot be renamed by udev rules as expected if `dev_port`
is not correctly initialized, because the second port doesn't match
'ATTR{dev_port}=="1"'.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists