From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: proc_name in sysfs Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:52:15 +0100 Message-ID: <20050411115215.GB13154@infradead.org> References: <4253CA94.8000500@bull.net> <20050408064645.GA4860@infradead.org> <42563AC4.4050605@torque.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:32918 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261788AbVDKLwV (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:52:21 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42563AC4.4050605@torque.net> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Douglas Gilbert Cc: Frederic TEMPORELLI , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 06:03:16PM +1000, Douglas Gilbert wrote: > >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. > > Forget the "proc_" part. It is effectively the lld_name. > > Allowing the LLD to name itself to the scsi subsystem > makes sense, especially when the LLD is made up of several > kernel modules. See my previous example comparing the > output of lsscsi -H and scan_host.sh . In theory we have ->name for that, but people have decided to put really verbose stuff in there. A module name is important, not just for scsi. James once had a proposal where the scsi_host can link to the module in sysfs, which is the right thing and needed for other things like mkinitrd aswell.