Re: [PATCH] scsi sysfs update (upper 2/3)

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>]

On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 08:41:52AM -0800, Mike Anderson wrote:
> > > -	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).

We register a scsi upperlayer driver with the midlayer, we don't care
about the implementation, and it's certainly not a bus.  I do btw
disagree strongly with using the device model bus type for upper level
drivers.  We have a bus in scsi, and that's the connection between the
HBA and the devices.  To make any sense out of the device model these
devices must be childs of the HBA.

> 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?

The device terminology in scsi is misleading but it's used at least
consistantly.  Feel free to submit a patch that changes it to upper
or something like that once scsi settles down a bit before 2.6.