[...]
> would change to ([*] means changed):
>
> controller
> bus (aka. primary/secondary)
> target (aka. master/slave)
> unit
> partition (DOS primary/BSD disklabel/??) [*]
> slice (Solaris/*BSD slices/DOS logical/MINIX sub-part/??) [*]
>
> I think in this way we have most flexibility and we are sure that the
> "ID"'s won't accidentally jump if we change something else, semingly
> unrelated.
Note that Solaris uses controller, target (SCSI), disk, slice for
user-level names, and a truly incomprehensible gibberish otherwise. I
assume this "device" (at least it's "d" ;) is for devices where you can
address subdevices. Perhaps CD changers or RAID arrays fit this model?
Also, does it really make sense to distinguish controllers based on the bus
to which they attach? How about floppies, or say Zip drives on the paralell
ports?
Note that this doesn't give independence either, if I delete slices 2 and 3
and make a new slice 2 in that space, everything else moves. OTOH,
reorganizing the physical or logical devices on the system is not something
done on a daily basis, so this isn't exactly high-priority.
All this clearly means first getting much larger device numbers that you
can then slice up to your convenience and mirror into the device name.
-- Horst von Brand vonbrand@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl Casilla 9G, Viņa del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/