FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-08-2011, 03:35 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default biosdevname in fedora 15 - why is this inconsistency?

On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 08:45 -0600, Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> >> ifconfig shows I have em1, p2p1;
> >> Why does it not defined as pci<slot>#<port>?
>
> > The man page is out of date. pciXp_Y got changed to pXpY, I believe
> > because it turned out to be important that the names be kept below a
> > certain length.
>
> I also have biosdevname-0.3.8-1.fc15.x86_64, but ifconfig says I have
> eth0 and eth1 for the wireless. How come?

That would indicate your BIOS doesn't have the necessary support; quite
a few don't. There's some notes on what's needed for biosdevname to work
at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-01-27_Network_Device_Naming_With_Biosdevname#Hardware _Requirements , the test day we ran on this function in the last cycle.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-08-2011, 03:35 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default biosdevname in fedora 15 - why is this inconsistency?

On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 08:45 -0600, Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> >> ifconfig shows I have em1, p2p1;
> >> Why does it not defined as pci<slot>#<port>?
>
> > The man page is out of date. pciXp_Y got changed to pXpY, I believe
> > because it turned out to be important that the names be kept below a
> > certain length.
>
> I also have biosdevname-0.3.8-1.fc15.x86_64, but ifconfig says I have
> eth0 and eth1 for the wireless. How come?

That would indicate your BIOS doesn't have the necessary support; quite
a few don't. There's some notes on what's needed for biosdevname to work
at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-01-27_Network_Device_Naming_With_Biosdevname#Hardware _Requirements , the test day we ran on this function in the last cycle.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-08-2011, 04:02 PM
Petrus de Calguarium
 
Default biosdevname in fedora 15 - why is this inconsistency?

Adam Williamson wrote:

> That would indicate your BIOS doesn't have the necessary support;
quite
> a few don't. There's some notes on what's needed for biosdevname to
work
> at
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-01-27_Network_Device_Nami
ng_With_Biosdevname#Hardware_Requirements

I ran the script, output:

Checking hardware requirements [ OK ]
Checking for SMBIOS type 41 support [FAILED]
Checking for SMBIOS type 9 support [ OK ]
Checking for PCI Interrupt Routing support [ OK ]

The instructions say:

"If the output of the script is [ OK ] and any of the following checks
is [ OK ], your hardware is supported by biosdevname".

So, what's wrong?

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-08-2011, 04:02 PM
Petrus de Calguarium
 
Default biosdevname in fedora 15 - why is this inconsistency?

Adam Williamson wrote:

> That would indicate your BIOS doesn't have the necessary support;
quite
> a few don't. There's some notes on what's needed for biosdevname to
work
> at
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-01-27_Network_Device_Nami
ng_With_Biosdevname#Hardware_Requirements

I ran the script, output:

Checking hardware requirements [ OK ]
Checking for SMBIOS type 41 support [FAILED]
Checking for SMBIOS type 9 support [ OK ]
Checking for PCI Interrupt Routing support [ OK ]

The instructions say:

"If the output of the script is [ OK ] and any of the following checks
is [ OK ], your hardware is supported by biosdevname".

So, what's wrong?

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-08-2011, 04:12 PM
Tom Hughes
 
Default biosdevname in fedora 15 - why is this inconsistency?

On 08/07/11 17:02, Petrus de Calguarium wrote:

> I ran the script, output:
>
> Checking hardware requirements [ OK ]
> Checking for SMBIOS type 41 support [FAILED]
> Checking for SMBIOS type 9 support [ OK ]
> Checking for PCI Interrupt Routing support [ OK ]
>
> The instructions say:
>
> "If the output of the script is [ OK ] and any of the following checks
> is [ OK ], your hardware is supported by biosdevname".
>
> So, what's wrong?

Did you upgrade this machine from an earlier version of Fedora? If so
then I suspect the old names will stick because you will have udev
persistent naming rules for them.

Check /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules and I bet you have rules
that are forcing the ethX names.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (tom@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-08-2011, 04:12 PM
Tom Hughes
 
Default biosdevname in fedora 15 - why is this inconsistency?

On 08/07/11 17:02, Petrus de Calguarium wrote:

> I ran the script, output:
>
> Checking hardware requirements [ OK ]
> Checking for SMBIOS type 41 support [FAILED]
> Checking for SMBIOS type 9 support [ OK ]
> Checking for PCI Interrupt Routing support [ OK ]
>
> The instructions say:
>
> "If the output of the script is [ OK ] and any of the following checks
> is [ OK ], your hardware is supported by biosdevname".
>
> So, what's wrong?

Did you upgrade this machine from an earlier version of Fedora? If so
then I suspect the old names will stick because you will have udev
persistent naming rules for them.

Check /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules and I bet you have rules
that are forcing the ethX names.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (tom@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-08-2011, 04:15 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default biosdevname in fedora 15 - why is this inconsistency?

On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 10:02 -0600, Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > That would indicate your BIOS doesn't have the necessary support;
> quite
> > a few don't. There's some notes on what's needed for biosdevname to
> work
> > at
> >
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-01-27_Network_Device_Nami
> ng_With_Biosdevname#Hardware_Requirements
>
> I ran the script, output:
>
> Checking hardware requirements [ OK ]
> Checking for SMBIOS type 41 support [FAILED]
> Checking for SMBIOS type 9 support [ OK ]
> Checking for PCI Interrupt Routing support [ OK ]
>
> The instructions say:
>
> "If the output of the script is [ OK ] and any of the following checks
> is [ OK ], your hardware is supported by biosdevname".
>
> So, what's wrong?

I plead ignorance - you reached the limits of my knowledge on the
topic Matt Domsch might be able to help, when he comes by. Oh, if you
upgrade from earlier Fedora releases, I believe it preserves your
previous interface names by default: you have to wipe out a few config
files to make it use the new ones, starting with the /etc/udev/rules.d
file that specifies interface names.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-08-2011, 04:15 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default biosdevname in fedora 15 - why is this inconsistency?

On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 10:02 -0600, Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > That would indicate your BIOS doesn't have the necessary support;
> quite
> > a few don't. There's some notes on what's needed for biosdevname to
> work
> > at
> >
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-01-27_Network_Device_Nami
> ng_With_Biosdevname#Hardware_Requirements
>
> I ran the script, output:
>
> Checking hardware requirements [ OK ]
> Checking for SMBIOS type 41 support [FAILED]
> Checking for SMBIOS type 9 support [ OK ]
> Checking for PCI Interrupt Routing support [ OK ]
>
> The instructions say:
>
> "If the output of the script is [ OK ] and any of the following checks
> is [ OK ], your hardware is supported by biosdevname".
>
> So, what's wrong?

I plead ignorance - you reached the limits of my knowledge on the
topic Matt Domsch might be able to help, when he comes by. Oh, if you
upgrade from earlier Fedora releases, I believe it preserves your
previous interface names by default: you have to wipe out a few config
files to make it use the new ones, starting with the /etc/udev/rules.d
file that specifies interface names.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-08-2011, 04:22 PM
Petrus de Calguarium
 
Default biosdevname in fedora 15 - why is this inconsistency?

Tom Hughes wrote:

> Did you upgrade this machine from an earlier version of Fedora? If so
> then I suspect the old names will stick because you will have udev
> persistent naming rules for them.

No, I did a clean install. I installed a week before the first Test
Candidate for the first Release Candidate of the Alpha for Fedora 15
came out.
>
> Check /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules and I bet you have
rules
> that are forcing the ethX names.

Yes, this file is present.

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-08-2011, 04:22 PM
Petrus de Calguarium
 
Default biosdevname in fedora 15 - why is this inconsistency?

Tom Hughes wrote:

> Did you upgrade this machine from an earlier version of Fedora? If so
> then I suspect the old names will stick because you will have udev
> persistent naming rules for them.

No, I did a clean install. I installed a week before the first Test
Candidate for the first Release Candidate of the Alpha for Fedora 15
came out.
>
> Check /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules and I bet you have
rules
> that are forcing the ethX names.

Yes, this file is present.

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:45 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org