From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Anderson Subject: Re: FWD: [BK PATCH] SCSI host num allocation improvement Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:49:25 -0800 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040227164925.GC1424@beaverton.ibm.com> References: <1077842444.2662.123.camel@mulgrave> <20040227124811.A32109@infradead.org> <20040227130414.GH4019@phunnypharm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.133]:11775 "EHLO e35.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263044AbUB0Qug (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:50:36 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040227130414.GH4019@phunnypharm.org> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Ben Collins Cc: Christoph Hellwig , James Bottomley , SCSI Mailing List 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