From: Mike Anderson <andmike@us.ibm.com>
To: Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@steeleye.com>,
SCSI Mailing List <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: FWD: [BK PATCH] SCSI host num allocation improvement
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:49:25 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040227164925.GC1424@beaverton.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040227130414.GH4019@phunnypharm.org>
Ben Collins [bcollins@debian.org] wrote:
> 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.
>
I thought the direction was that default kernels names where headed in
the direction of being depreciated. Are you using udev or something else
for you naming policy. Is your naming policy based on position? Are the
devices you are attaching unable to return a unique ID. Device naming
based on immutable values are better.
-andmike
--
Michael Anderson
andmike@us.ibm.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-27 16:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-27 0:40 FWD: [BK PATCH] SCSI host num allocation improvement James Bottomley
2004-02-27 0:56 ` Matthew Dharm
2004-02-27 1:04 ` Ben Collins
2004-02-27 7:56 ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-02-27 12:30 ` Ben Collins
2004-02-27 12:39 ` Matthew Wilcox
2004-02-27 12:43 ` Ben Collins
2004-02-27 12:48 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-02-27 12:48 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-02-27 13:04 ` Ben Collins
2004-02-27 16:49 ` Mike Anderson [this message]
2004-02-27 17:00 ` Ben Collins
2004-02-27 21:26 ` Mike Anderson
2004-02-27 15:08 ` James Bottomley
2004-02-27 15:15 ` Ben Collins
2004-02-27 15:29 ` James Bottomley
2004-02-27 15:32 ` Ben Collins
2004-02-27 16:37 ` James Bottomley
2004-02-27 16:39 ` Ben Collins
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-02-27 13:25 David.Egolf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040227164925.GC1424@beaverton.ibm.com \
--to=andmike@us.ibm.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@steeleye.com \
--cc=bcollins@debian.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox