From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: driverfs is not for everything! (was: [PATCH] /proc/scsi/map ) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:09:13 -0400 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <200206241809.g5OI9Ds02886@localhost.localdomain> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: (from root@localhost) by pogo.mtv1.steeleye.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA01509 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 11:09:20 -0700 In-Reply-To: Message from "Grover, Andrew" of "Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:35:53 PDT." <59885C5E3098D511AD690002A5072D3C02AB7F53@orsmsx111.jf.intel.com> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: "Grover, Andrew" Cc: 'David Brownell' , 'Nick Bellinger' , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Patrick Mochel andrew.grover@intel.com said: > If a device can be accessed by multiple machines concurrently, it > should not be in driverfs. On that argument, we'll eliminate almost all Fibre Channel devices! I think the qualification for appearing in driverfs is actually possessing a driver. Therefore, we accept FC and iSCSI. Things which appear as FileSystems are debatable, but not anything which has a real device driver. > We need a device tree to do PM. If driverfs's PM capabilities are hurt > because it doesn't stay true to that, then the featureitis has gone > too far. Perhaps it's more a question of whether power management belongs as an every unit item in driverfs. As you say, we get problems where the device is shared between multiple computers. James