On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 11:34:27 -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 11:21:27PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote: > > > This flip-flopping is, AFAIK, more the fault of the newer kernel then > > the fault of udev. If the kernel would always load the modules in the > > same order then udev would probably assign the device nodes in a > > consistent manner. > > I disagree. Udev is responsible for creating device nodes. It should > remember what devices nodes it has made in the past for different > devices, and recreate them the same way in the futuer.
My point was that I think that the randomness is introduced by the newer kernels. This hypothesis is based on observing sudden instability in the assignment of my eth* device nodes, triggered by a kernel upgrade rather than an udev upgrade. As far as I can tell, udev behaves deterministically for any given sequence of module loading. I was not making any statement about whether udev should do more to compensate for the uncertain order of module loading. Udev seems to have persistence mechanisms already anyway for important things (e.g. persistent-net.rules, the /dev/disk/by-* symlinks). -- Regards, | http://users.icfo.es/Florian.Kulzer Florian | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
