From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756379AbcHXU7p (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2016 16:59:45 -0400 Received: from caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca ([129.97.134.17]:48015 "EHLO caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932622AbcHXU7n (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2016 16:59:43 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 16:51:20 -0400 To: Thomas Petazzoni Cc: Ralph Sennhauser , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Gregory CLEMENT Subject: Re: [Regression?] Commit cb4f71c429 deliberately changes order of network interfaces Message-ID: <20160824205120.GH14311@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: <20160821151158.78da01e6@gmail.com> <20160824165011.6c811913@free-electrons.com> <20160824191004.3b4ff2cb@gmail.com> <20160824180727.GE14311@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <20160824201444.487022de@free-electrons.com> <20160824182758.GF14311@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <20160824215200.22de30d1@free-electrons.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160824215200.22de30d1@free-electrons.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) From: lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 09:52:00PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > I'll let the platform maintainers decide what's the least > intrusive/problematic option. Both solutions have drawbacks, so it's > really a "political" decision to make here. I think the main valid argument for a revert is that it violates the documented dtb ordering rule. It also fails to actually do what it was intended to do since network device probing order really isn't defined in linux and if you care you should fix it in userspace. Fixing a regression would be a side effect, and since the ordering isn't certain anyhow, anyone that did see a regression was doing it "wrong" already, although also anyone that saw a benefit from the change was also doing it "wrong". > Not only async probing, but also PCIe devices, as you mentioned > earlier :-) Yeah they better come up with a safer way to determine which network device is which from user space. -- Len Sorensen