Re: FWD: [BK PATCH] SCSI host num allocation improvement

[Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org>]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 08:49:25AM -0800, Mike Anderson wrote:
> 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.

Not sure if you are directing this at me(firewire), but the ieee1394
devices are immutable naming that comes from the device. I don't have
any control over how the scsi layer sets up the scsi host numbers and
device names though.

-- 
Debian     - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
WatchGuard - http://www.watchguard.com/