On 03/03 00:19, g4sra via Dng wrote:
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 12:15 AM, spiralofhope <spiralofhope@???> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 01:34:40 +1100
> > Ralph Ronnquist via Dng dng@??? wrote:
> > > For bare-metal hardware I believe there is a first possible "race"
> > > between different modules (that handle different card types), and a
> > > second possible "race" for multiple same-type cards, which are handled
> > > by the one and same module.
>
> > I've always found this strange..
>
> > Is there nothing like hard drives' UUID?
>
> Yes, MAC Addresses.
> Sysadmins are just generally too lazy to use them.

Well, this is really a fundamental problem, the "das ding an sich"
that Kant brought up some few years ago to the merriment and pleasure
of his contemporary philosphical minded peers.

But yes, MAC address for network interfaces are alike UUID for
partitions in that they are used for identifing the *functions* of
devices so that further configurations can be made with respect to
those identifications regardless of which actual, physical device
implements them (the functions). The same function (e.g. partition)
can then be transferred to a different physical device without needing
to change those configurations.

Between a physical device and the function you find the adapter, which
implements actual device control and makes the device be of a class,
so that software can access it by virtue of a class API. The names
"eth0" and such then corresponds to the disk adapter naming like "sda"
and such; they are identification labels for the adapters rather than
for the actual devices that the adapters operate on.

I think Lewis Carroll had a stab at this issue as well in "Through The
Looking Glass" where the name of the Black Knight was called
something... or how it was.

Ralph.