Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] netconf MAC setting change

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: seth AT swoolley.homeip.net
  • To: Pieter Lenaerts <e-type AT sourcemage.org>
  • Cc: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] netconf MAC setting change
  • Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 00:58:26 -0700

My point was that "if you choose a mac-based system, here's a possible
implementation" This is an interface-centric viewpoint.

There are other choices too. a pci- or usb-id-based system, for
example. usb-id-based systems depend on the order the item is inserted.
pci-id-based systems depend on the order on the motherboard.
This is a slot-oriented viewpoint.

If you want to resolve this where both are supported by a flag, that
might be what you're going after. Having a slot-oriented view would get
you duplicate macs, but wouldn't get you a mac-based configuration,
which is actually the more natural of the two given a richer hotplugging
setup. It's a trade-off. The trade-off can even be made
configuration-file specific for complete flexibility.

Why not handle both?

On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 08:41:59AM +0200, Pieter Lenaerts wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 11:01:40PM -0700, seth AT swoolley.homeip.net wrote:
>
> snipping heavily
>
> > If a user messes with a MAC outside
> > of this framework, they are on their own, of course.
> >
> > This of course assumes that the driver is loaded and not reloaded (which
> > would bring it back to its NATIVE_MAC state.
> >
> > That covers almost any situation and still allows it to be a flexible
> > field. It doesn't allow duplicate names, nor duplicate MACs, but that's
> > the flaw when you want both to be unique.
>
> it's this (imo) abuse of the word "any" that we're trying to solve here. i
> clearly interpret "any situation" differently* ;)
>
> the implementation right now is a rough cut of what you describe.
> it pretends to offer some advanced features but doesn't really. using
> the mac will never work in "any" situation, exactly because we know that
> we can't guarantee that we can track it.
>
> anything that assumes that the user knows exactly when it will work but
> pretends to work at all time is crap, must be removed from our master
> branch and can return when we agree that it's ready.
>
>
>
>
> ps: * : let's agree that we keep "any" within the boundaries of present,
> working devices, so that noone starts throwing ridiculous reasons like
> kernel configs or attacking martians at anyone (not esp. you, Seth, but
> rather to all in the discussion)
>
> --
> Pieter Lenaerts
> Source Mage GNU/Linux
> http://www.sourcemage.org - "Linux so advanced it may well be magic"



> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page