From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Collins Subject: Re: FWD: [BK PATCH] SCSI host num allocation improvement Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:04:14 -0500 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040227130414.GH4019@phunnypharm.org> References: <1077842444.2662.123.camel@mulgrave> <20040227124811.A32109@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from bristol.phunnypharm.org ([65.207.35.130]:53721 "EHLO bristol.phunnypharm.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262830AbUB0NFY (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:05:24 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040227124811.A32109@infradead.org> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: James Bottomley , SCSI Mailing List On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 12:48:11PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 06:40:43PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote: > > I'm forwarding this to linux-scsi, which is the appropriate list to > > scrutinise it. > > Well, the last patch looks sane if we want to do that. But didn't we > declare the mononically increasing host numbers a feature? I can't see how things like the device naming can work the "right" way, but making the host numbers work in an increasing fashion would be a feature or even a benefit. -- Debian - http://www.debian.org/ Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/ Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/ WatchGuard - http://www.watchguard.com/