From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Anderson Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi sysfs update (upper 2/3) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 08:41:52 -0800 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20021107164152.GD1292@beaverton.ibm.com> References: <20021107073619.GA1390@beaverton.ibm.com> <20021107073943.GB1390@beaverton.ibm.com> <20021107182947.B15350@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021107182947.B15350@sgi.com> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Christoph Hellwig [hch@sgi.com] wrote: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 11:39:43PM -0800, Mike Anderson wrote: > > + .scsi_driverfs_driver = { > > + .name = "sd", > > + }, > > can we changhe scsi_driverfs_driver to something saner? E.g. gen_driver? > ok. I did have some name changes previous, but pulled them out to reduce collisions with the patches going on in this area. Though my below renaming is not consitant with this thought :-). > > static struct scsi_disk *sd_find_by_sdev(Scsi_Device *sd) > > @@ -1346,7 +1349,7 @@ > > if (!majors) > > return -ENODEV; > > > > - rc = scsi_register_device(&sd_template); > > + rc = scsi_bus_driver_register(&sd_template); > > Umm, no. We don't register a bus. Just leave the name unchanged until > we there is some commonly agreed upon upper layer terminology. Well we are registering a driver with the device model scsi_bus (i.e a driver_register on scsi_bus_type). Could we agree on terminology now as I believe scsi_register_device is mis-leading for others reading the scsi code as it is a driver not a device? -andmike -- Michael Anderson andmike@us.ibm.com