Re: devfs
Mitch Adair (mitch@acan.net)
Sun, 11 Jan 1998 17:43:54 -0600 (CST)
>
> Mitch Adair writes:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Richard Gooch wrote:
> > > > > This allows then to stay compatible with their naming sheme but has the
> > > > > drawback of dropping support for LUNs. This only works properly for the
> > > > > special case of the SSAs since you only have disk drives in them.
> > > > >
> > > > > However I do not think that we should make the same mistake as them
> > > > > and cut ourselves off from supporting multi LUN devices.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed! Considering this, I'm open to alternative naming schemes, but
> > > > only if they preserve the information.
> > >
> > > The easiest would be to add a field so that it looks like the following:
> > >
> > > cCbBtTdDsS
> > >
> > > <C> == controller
> > > <B> == bus/channel on controller
> > > <T> == target (ID)
> > > <D> == LUN
> > > <S> == slice/partition
> > >
> > Yes, *please* use this layout. Those of us who've been dainbramaged by
> > our exposure to Solaris would really appreciate it, I think. :)
>
> So how about my original scheme:
>
> sd_hHcCiIlLpP
>
> <H> -> host controller
> <C> -> SCSI channel/bus
> <I> -> SCSI target ID
> <L> -> LUN
> <P> -> partition
To my thinking, any combination of letter and numbers is equally
valid... once you've figured out what they all stand for ;)
I was just voting for the one that is closest to what I am
used to working with - the Solaris naming scheme. Since the
positions are the same its not that bad - just doesn't roll of the
tongue quite like c0b0t0d0s0 :)
Whichever you decide on for the specifics of host, bus, etc., however,
I would also vote for the idea someone suggested of putting the sd as a
directory. Again, Solaris has fe /dev/dsk/c0t3d0s0, and I think it is just
nice conceptually to have:
/dev/sd/...
/dev/sr/...
/dev/st/...
/dev/md/...
/dev/rsd/... (eventually ;)
Mitch
(hope nobody gets the idea from this I'd like Linux to be like Solaris,
ANYTHING but that ... its just this one thing :)