Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:31:51 +0300 From: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Why not just name the cam-ata devices the same as the old names? Message-ID: <4DB70F97.1070809@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4DB70949.6090104@FreeBSD.org> References: <4DB70949.6090104@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi. Doug Barton wrote: > I'm not nearly as smart as you are, so please explain to me like I'm > dense. :) Why can we not simply give the devices created by ata-cam the > same names they have under the old ata system? Don't underestimate yourself, or don't make me blush. ;) There are two problems: names and unit numbers. We can't use same names because old and new stacks coexisting last 18 months (and they will forever in 8.x), and it was possible to just load single ahci module of new stack for SATA devices, while PATA were working via old stack. Using same name would cause collisions. Now when we are going to switch to the new stack completely, coexistence could be a bit less important, but there is already number of migrated systems and they would suffer from the second renaming. Even if we do something with names, there is a problem with device unit numbers. Previous numbering scheme of ATA_STATIC_ID reserved only two device numbers per ATA channel. It was working fine for PATA times, but it is not now. When SATA port multipliers are used (and it is not so rare now), there could be up to 15 devices per channel, plus multiplier itself. They just won't fit. -- Alexander Motin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4DB70F97.1070809>