Re: [patch] convert the scsi layer to use struct device

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>]

On Sat, 2008-03-15 at 19:26 +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-03-15 at 13:01 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-03-15 at 11:16 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2008-03-15 at 16:17 +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > > > We just need to create something like a "contains" link from the
> > > > component to the scsi device, and a "enclosure" link at the scsi device
> > > > back to the component, right?
> > > 
> > > Assuming you're moving to the single tree model, then I can easily do
> > > this:
> > > 
> > > <real enclosure device>/<enclosure>/<enclosure component>/device -> link
> > > to component device
> > > 
> > > with a back link in the component device pointing to the enclosure
> > > component.
> > > 
> > > The way components work, probably blowing away enclosure_component_class
> > > makes the most sense anyway.
> > 
> > OK, so this is the patch doing the above; is this what you had in mind?
> > We're now managing all the links.
> 
> Yeah, that looks fine.
> 
> While I in general don't really like the <classname>:<devname> symlinks.
> One needs to readdir() the whole device directory to find them, which is
> not nice for a 1:1 relationship link between two devices. I would prefer
> to be able to find an enclosure component for a LUN by simply looking
> at:
>   /sys/bus/scsi/devices/0:0:0:0/enclosure/
> instead of searching for that composed link, because one can't predict
> its name. Can there ever be more than one link from a device to an
> enclosure?
> 
> Also the "device" link, it will work to use that name, I guess, but it
> has usually a different meaning, as all "device" links are just
> meaninglessly pointing to the next parent device with !SYSFS_DEPRECATED.
> With !SYSFS_DEPRECATED <classname>:<devname> links are no longer
> created for any device, the class device directories just live in a
> subdirectory with the class name.

Right, but we can't do that with enclosure components, otherwise it
really will be a multi rooted tree.

> Do you prefer the <classname>:<devname>, "device" names?

I'm not wedded to the name.  I like the backlink because it tells me
where a device is in the enclosure when I look at it, but it could be
called anything.  I chose those names to match what's in 2.6.24, but I
suppose there aren't very many users yet, since it was new functionality
in 2.6.24.

If the backlink were called "enclosure_component", that would probably
be fine.  Not sure I have a better name than "device" for the actual
device in the enclosure slot, though.

James


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html