mirror of
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.git
synced 2026-01-01 20:00:12 +01:00
3f969d3b5b
NM_CONTROLLED=no has the primary use of marking devices as unmanaged.
For that to work, the ifcfg file must contain either a MAC address,
an interface-name, or s390-subchannels that match a device.
In case the profile doesn't contain such specifiers, the profile
is ignored and a warning was logged:
<warn> [1522849679.7866] ifcfg-rh: loading "/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-ens99" fails: NM_CONTROLLED was false but device was not uniquely identified; device will be managed
Downgrade this warning to a debug message. It's not unreasonable
that a user marks a ifcfg file with NM_CONTROLLED=no, to avoid
NetworkManager handling it. Yes, that way, the user did not explicitly
mark a device as unmanaged. But NetworkManager will ignore the profile,
as the user might resonably desire. No need to warn about that.
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| plugins | ||
| nm-agent-manager.c | ||
| nm-agent-manager.h | ||
| nm-secret-agent.c | ||
| nm-secret-agent.h | ||
| nm-settings-connection.c | ||
| nm-settings-connection.h | ||
| nm-settings-plugin.c | ||
| nm-settings-plugin.h | ||
| nm-settings.c | ||
| nm-settings.h | ||