Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 22:30:16 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> Cc: Takahashi Yoshihiro <nyan@jp.FreeBSD.org>, bde@zeta.org.au, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libdisk Makefile chunk.c write_alpha_disk.c write_i386_disk.c write_pc98_disk.c Message-ID: <4578.1035491416@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:20:55 PDT." <200210242020.QAA29385@valiant.cnchost.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200210242020.QAA29385@valiant.cnchost.com>, Bakul Shah writes: > <device-name>/<slot>/<partition>/<root-relative-pathname> > >or some such syntax to select what to boot. For example, > > wd/0/a/kernel > >instead of wd(0,a)/kernel. Made perfect sense to me: if you >have a name-space you name else you index what comes next and >recurse. Makes even more sense so when you can have a >stackable disk sub-system. Now, this is the first novel proposal I see on this issue, and that allows me to say that I'm entirely for a revamp of the way we name our disks. My pet peeve right now is that scsi disks seems to have rather inconstant names, in particular if somebody plays havoc with a SAN configuration. Anyone who can come up with a coherent proposal which uniquely logically, unambigously and sensibly names disk devices _and_ get concensus for his proposal will have my support. Please remember that the proposal should be cross architecture. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4578.1035491416>