biosdevname in fedora 15 - why is this inconsistency?
I have biosdevname-0.3.8-1.fc15.x86_64 on fedora 15 machine.
I see from
man biosdevname , that the name of the devices should be:
for embedded NICs
for cards in PCI slots
ifconfig shows I have em1, p2p1;
indded em1 is embedded NICs.
However , the second nic is PCI nic. Why does it not defined as
is this some udev definition (some policy) which sets other names for
pci nics ?
any idea where this policy is defined and how can I choose a different policy ?
devel mailing list
Fri Jul 8 16:30:07 2011
Delivery-date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 16:12:23 +0300
Received: from bastion02.fedoraproject.org ([126.96.36.199]:57782 helo=bastion.fedoraproject.org)
by s2.java-tips.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
for firstname.lastname@example.org; Fri, 08 Jul 2011 16:12:19 +0300
Received: from lists.fedoraproject.org (collab1.vpn.fedoraproject.org [192.168.1.21])
by bastion02.phx2.fedoraproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DE8E110AC1;
Fri, 8 Jul 2011 13:15:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from collab1.fedoraproject.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by lists.fedoraproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61379326768;
Fri, 8 Jul 2011 13:15:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp-mm02.fedoraproject.org (smtp-mm02.fedoraproject.org
by lists.fedoraproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87DB1326766
Fri, 8 Jul 2011 13:15:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ey0-f173.google.com (mail-ey0-f173.google.com
by smtp-mm02.fedoraproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BEDAE721C
Fri, 8 Jul 2011 13:15:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by eyb6 with SMTP id 6so703699eyb.32
Fri, 08 Jul 2011 06:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.213.34.201 with SMTP id m9mr207759ebd.100.1310130947932;
Fri, 08 Jul 2011 06:15:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from valhalla.rhi.hi.is (valhalla.rhi.hi.is [188.8.131.52])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s12sm182663eeb.20.2011.07.08.06.15.46
(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 08 Jul 2011 06:15:47 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 13:15:29 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
rv:184.108.40.206) Gecko/20110428 Fedora/3.1.10-1.fc15 Thunderbird/3.1.10
Subject: Re: systemd: Is it wrong?
References: <4E167232.4010003@RedHat.com> <loom.20110708T133910email@example.com> <4E16F438.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Reply-To: Development discussions related to Fedora
List-Id: Development discussions related to Fedora
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On 07/08/2011 12:41 PM, JB wrote:
> I think you are "fixing" it to work according to your world view :-)
> $ man sysctl
> sysctl [-n] [-e] [-q] -w variable=value ...
> So, if nfslock.service file contains:
> ExecStart=/sbin/sysctl -w fs.nfs.nlm_tcpport=$LOCKD_TCPPORT
> then this is the correct syntax.
> If this does not work as processed by systemd, then that means a bug ...
Or more likely this means that the content of the $LOCKD_TCPPORT
variable is not being delivered to /sbin/sysctl -w fs.nfs.nlm_tcpport=
Like for instance if he left it hashed out in the sysconfig file the
service would fail since fs.nfs.nlm_tcpport= is expecting to have some
as I explained on the bug report in comment 43
I repeatly asked to see that sysconfig file so I could diagnose the
problem further but I got responses like..
"How does your /etc/sysconfig file look like basically
why does this matter? Its the default one that is installed..."
( Which eventually led me to loose my cool because I really needed to
see what he was passing if any to that command something I'm not
particularly proud of )
So does not the default have the $LOCKD_TCPPORT line hashed out
#$LOCKD_TCPPORT which means you arent passing anything to /sbin/sysctl
-w fs.nfs.nlm_tcpport= which then would result in this..
Nothing to do with systemd to but everything to do with the command and
or the sysconfig file
Anyway I fixed his service and it works now as he wanted to be afaikt so
he should be happy and ships the native systemd service file which makes
me be happy and I can cross nfs off
devel mailing list