Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:19:38 +0400 From: Kamigishi Rei <spambox@haruhiism.net> To: Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD-Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, scottl@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: ATA to CAM integration patch Message-ID: <4A462A7A.20005@haruhiism.net> In-Reply-To: <20090627141412.GN31709@acme.spoerlein.net> References: <4A4517BE.9040504@FreeBSD.org> <20090627141412.GN31709@acme.spoerlein.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, hope you're having a nice day, Ulrich Spörlein wrote: > I, personally, think this is not very good idea. People are used to > CAM-devices getting enumerated as da0, da1, etc. All the documentation > talks about ad0 for ATA and da0 (plus camcontrol) for SCSI, USB, > Firewire devices. We also have fd0 and cd0 and should stick to > two-letter-plus-number codes. So either make them all ad0 or da0. I'd > vote for the latter, as that is what Linux is doing (more or less) and > people are already familiar with USB drives or new SATA drives showing > up as "SCSI drives, so they get the SCSI names". > This poses the question of daXX enumeration order. I've already had some 'fun' with an IBM server which has an LVD/320 SCSI controller. While the controller's bus was enumerated properly, somehow if you attach an USB mass storage device before the system boot that said mass storage could suddenly appear earlier than one of the SCSI disks (that was on 7.0-RELEASE) thus breaking the boot process sometimes (when it appeared as da0). -- Kamigishi Rei KREI-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A462A7A.20005>