Bug 234075
Summary: | Using PERSISTENT_DHCLIENT with no link present | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Paul B Schroeder <pschroeder> | ||||
Component: | initscripts | Assignee: | Bill Nottingham <notting> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Brock Organ <borgan> | ||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||
Version: | 6 | CC: | rvokal | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | 8.52-1 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | ||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | 2007-04-16 22:12:36 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
Embargoed: | |||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Paul B Schroeder
2007-03-26 21:30:42 UTC
Created attachment 150965 [details]
ifup-eth CHECK_LINK_DOWN patch
Why not just use LINKDELAY or NETWORKDELAY for your switch? (In reply to comment #2) > Why not just use LINKDELAY or NETWORKDELAY for your switch? We want devices to still come up normally if the switch is already up and the link is present. Wouldn't using those *always* create a delay at startup? Hm. I'd wonder if in the case of PERSISTENT_DHCLIENT, the link status should be ignored *by default* - I'm not sure in what case you'd actually want to ever exit. (In reply to comment #4) > Hm. I'd wonder if in the case of PERSISTENT_DHCLIENT, the link status should be > ignored *by default* - I'm not sure in what case you'd actually want to ever exit. Didn't think about that prior.. But now that you mention it, yea, that seems to make the most sense. Added in CVS, will be in 8.52-1. |