From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hare@suse.com (Hannes Reinecke) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 16:39:23 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 3/6] nvme: claim block devices In-Reply-To: <20171005140525.GB2384@localhost.localdomain> References: <1506952559-1588-4-git-send-email-hare@suse.de> <20171002164218.GA11886@lst.de> <20171003115506.GC24650@lst.de> <20171004061533.GA20131@lst.de> <19dbdf11-86c4-b6ea-a18c-a78fcae822d5@suse.de> <20171004071312.GA21143@lst.de> <20171005065124.h5t3gtufptevja4s@linux-x5ow.site> <20171005140525.GB2384@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <6e9b4ef9-c88a-d8b0-1ae7-16e8403e60df@suse.com> On 10/05/2017 04:05 PM, Keith Busch wrote: > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017@08:51:24AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 04, 2017@09:08:57PM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote: >>> >>> Christoph, >>> >>>> The only other option I could think of would be to turn names around: >>>> make /dev/nvmeX (chardev) and /dev/nvmeXnY the per-subsystem devices >>>> that are multipathed if available. We'd then need new devices for the >>>> invdividual controllers. >>> >>> I like that approach. >> >> /me too > > I can get on board with this approach for the namespaces, but the > controller char devs should stay as they are for compatibility and > existing tools. The IO commands (including reservations) are not > controller specific, so not knowing which path is used will okay for > namespaces. Most admin commands are controller specific, so we can't > just shift the controller handle to the subsystem level. > I'm fine with having individual char devs for the controller and the namespaces. That was the plan anyway, and they don't get into play with systemd et al. Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage hare at suse.com +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N?rnberg GF: F. Imend?rffer, J. Smithard, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton HRB 21284 (AG N?rnberg)