From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 01:26:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 01:26:49 -0500 Received: from Cantor.suse.de ([194.112.123.193]:19728 "HELO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 01:26:36 -0500 Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 07:26:34 +0100 From: Andi Kleen To: Chris Wedgwood Cc: Andi Kleen , "David S. Miller" , david@linux.com, greearb@candelatech.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!) Message-ID: <20010108072634.A29753@gruyere.muc.suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20010107162905.B1804@metastasis.f00f.org> <20010108011308.A2575@metastasis.f00f.org> <200101071201.EAA01790@pizda.ninka.net> <20010108063214.A29026@gruyere.muc.suse.de> <20010108191209.B4682@metastasis.f00f.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010108191209.B4682@metastasis.f00f.org>; from cw@f00f.org on Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 07:12:09PM +1300 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/