From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Smart Subject: Re: [PATCH] fc transport: new attributes for NPIV Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 14:04:39 -0500 Message-ID: <43C2B3C7.4010506@emulex.com> References: <43BD574D.8040009@emulex.com> <20060109180513.GA4286@infradead.org> Reply-To: James.Smart@Emulex.Com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from emulex.emulex.com ([138.239.112.1]:62923 "EHLO emulex.emulex.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750702AbWAITGB (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2006 14:06:01 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20060109180513.GA4286@infradead.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Andreas Herrmann , James Bottomley , Linux SCSI Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Actually I think even for Xen-like virtualization it makes most sense that > most domains wouldn't see the Scsi_Host for the phyisical port so this solution > looks most sane to me. The long name for the physical names sounds fine to me > as well, much better than un-understandable three-latter acronyms :) So my grind is just with the "physical_port_xxx" reference. It's too logical of a name for someone uninitiated with NPIV. How do they know the difference between physical_port_name and port_name, especially where the predominance of configs will always have the same values in both attributes ? Choosing something "physical" always seem like a better choice. I should have known better on the abbreviation.... :) Having made this argument - I then said - why not use the name from the standards, "permanent_port_xxx". But, when I look at this, it's not much different. Permanent vs Physical ? at least the abbreviation gave it some separation. Bah Humbug. My preference is still "permanent" over "physical" as it tracks the standards name. -- james