OK then. I can cope with that. So, people: you have a choice between:
h0c0i0l0p2 current scheme: no changes required :-)
h0c0t0u0p2 new scheme: requires people to change compatibility
symlinks and /etc/fstab (if you've gone that far)
Leonard: what's your view on the placement of these devices:
/dev/sd_h0c0t0u0p2 OR:
/dev/disc/sd_h0c0t0u0p2
I don't think deep directory trees are a good idea. At least not for
the standard names. We can always create other trees/names later.
> One interesting problem with this scheme: with the current module
> system, host adapter numbers monotonically increase. Unloading a
> SCSI driver and reloading it will change the host number, thereby
> making any device names incorrect. I understand that some people
> actually do this unload/reload process and have certain devices only
> available when they actually need them.
What happens if I have sdb on host 1, sdc on host 2 and then remove
host 1? Is sdc still a valid name?
I think your point argues in favour of additional naming schemes that
use UUIDs or vendor strings. Whether those solutions belong in kernel
space or user space is yet to be determined.
Regards,
Richard....