From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi-misc-2.5 remove scsi_scan.c EVPD code Date: 05 May 2003 12:01:31 -0500 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1052154092.1816.25.camel@mulgrave> References: <3EB619A4.5090407@torque.net> <1052144231.1888.10.camel@mulgrave> <20030505155210.GB1567@beaverton.ibm.com> <1052151252.1888.15.camel@mulgrave> <20030505165739.GD1567@beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from nat9.steeleye.com ([65.114.3.137]:55047 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263650AbTEEQuZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2003 12:50:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20030505165739.GD1567@beaverton.ibm.com> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Mike Anderson Cc: dougg@torque.net, Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl, SCSI Mailing List , linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, mdharm-scsi@one-eyed-alien.net, Patrick Mansfield On Mon, 2003-05-05 at 11:57, Mike Anderson wrote: > Yes I agree they are not exclusive to SCSI, but the same can be said of > the block argument. Block is large set, but is not the whole set of > possible uuid producing nodes. > > We could add it as a device default attribute (dev_default_attrs), but > it would produce the extra overhead like power does today for nodes that > have no uuid. Really, we could do with an extension of the class concept. Device could be bare bones, then the classes of device with power management, classes of device with unique ID etc. However, I think such a scheme might be too complex to be workable, so just adding it to the default device attributes would be fine by me too. James