[9fans] Missing /dev/etherX ?

[9fans] Missing /dev/etherX ?

[Riddler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1018 bytes --]

Hey guys,

I'm running the stock plan9 kernel in VirtualBox and I am expecting to see
two /dev/etherX entries but there is only one.

When I first installed it it had only one network card present, which
worked with no issues. I added a new one (host only network) with the same
model (Intel PRO/1000 MT Server) giving me two adapters (the first one is
NAT).

However, the /dev/ether0 entry has now changed its Ethernet address and is
referring to the 2nd Ethernet card. The first one seems to have vanished. I
searched the archives and didn't find anything, however I found one saying
to check /dev/kmesg. There seems to be two relevant entries in there which
I've put in below.

#l0: i82543: 1Gbps port 0xF0420000 irq 10: [2nd cards MAC]
#l1: i82543: 1Gbps port 0xF0440000 irq 10: [1st cards MAC]

So it seems to at least pick up on the two cards, but only creates one
/dev/eatherX? Is this expected or is there some additional configuration I
need to do?

Any suggestions?

Regards,
Rid.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1160 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] Missing /dev/etherX ?

[erik quanstrom]

> I'm running the stock plan9 kernel in VirtualBox and I am expecting to see
> two /dev/etherX entries but there is only one.

there shouldn't be any /dev/etherX entries.  do you mean /net/ether?

> #l0: i82543: 1Gbps port 0xF0420000 irq 10: [2nd cards MAC]
> #l1: i82543: 1Gbps port 0xF0440000 irq 10: [1st cards MAC]
>
> So it seems to at least pick up on the two cards, but only creates one
> /dev/eatherX? Is this expected or is there some additional configuration I
> need to do?

bind -a '#l1' /net

- erik

Re: [9fans] Missing /dev/etherX ?

[Riddler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 375 bytes --]

>
> there shouldn't be any /dev/etherX entries.  do you mean /net/ether?

I do indeed

bind -a '#l1' /net
>
That has indeed done it, thanks!

Out of curiosity, what is it that is binding the first one automatically
and not the second?
It that just the standard behavior, or is it perhaps a script that was
generated during installation with only one bind entry?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 829 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] Missing /dev/etherX ?

[erik quanstrom]

> bind -a '#l1' /net
> >
> That has indeed done it, thanks!
>
> Out of curiosity, what is it that is binding the first one automatically
> and not the second?
> It that just the standard behavior, or is it perhaps a script that was
> generated during installation with only one bind entry?

see /lib/namespace.  also, remember that the second interface is
very often put in a second ip stack on /net.alt.

- erik