From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: proc_name in sysfs Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 07:46:45 +0100 Message-ID: <20050408064645.GA4860@infradead.org> References: <4253CA94.8000500@bull.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:43956 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262705AbVDHGqs (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Apr 2005 02:46:48 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4253CA94.8000500@bull.net> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Frederic TEMPORELLI Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:40:04PM +0200, Frederic TEMPORELLI wrote: > Hello, > > > We are using HBAs modules names from "proc_name" interface in sysfs: > /sys/class/scsi_host/hostX/proc_name. > > But with new Emulex drivers (8.0.21 and +), proc_name is reporting > (previous drivers were reporting "lpfc"). > => In the driver code, .proc_name field from scsi_host_template structure > is no more initialized. > James Smart told us that the "removal" of .proc_name field (not really > removed, but no more initialized) was part of the /proc interfaces removal > (suggested by scsi-linux feedback). > > So: > 1/ now, what is the aim of proc_name interface (reporting "") in > sysfs ? > 2/ now, how can we get the adapter module name from sysfs ? > > => I'm just thinking that .proc_name field has to be kept initialized > and/or something has to be changed to replace the confusing "proc" prefix. The real problem is that someone decided to export the proc_name in sysfs. It's supposed to be only procfs-specific but someone violated that rule. Not sure how to proceed forward with this.