Stefan Grefen <grefen@hprc.tandem.com> writes:
> In message <Pine.LNX.4.02.9808202147500.14516-100000@feral-gw>  Matthew Jacob wrote:
> > > I strongly recommend deciding what you want to do about device naming
> > > before embarking on dynamic configuration.  It's really annoying when sd3a
> > > which has your root partition on it suddenly changes and becomes sd2a
> > > because one of the other disks did not come up.  And Wiring it down in the
> > > kernel config file is useless because, since it's a fully dynamic kernel,
> > > none of the devices are in the kernel config file.  
> > 
> > I've had a long standing projects, actually in the NetBSD projects
> > list, to do global device naming. Between WWN's and VPD and other
> > info, naming disks at least globally is the right thing to do.
> > 
> 
> Let do it NOW. Are there any objections (esp. from people deciding if it
> goes in the tree or not, charles? jason? Chris? ... ).

I don't mind e.g. assigning logical names to devices, e.g. "root_disk"
or similar things.  that's fine and dandy, and to be quite honest
almost completely outside of the scope of "autoconfiguration" as it
exists now.

However, if you're suggesting forcing targets 0-7 on controller 0 to
be sd0-7, etc. that's totally bogus.  I, personally, have benefitted
from the flexibility that the existing configuration mechansim
allows.  (E.g. to set things up so that you device numbers stay the
same even if you move your disks between SCSI chains.)  I'm sure
others have, as well.


cgd
-- 
Chris Demetriou - cgd@netbsd.org - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.
Plug: Get your official NetBSD-1.3.2 CDROM set today! http://www.netbsd.com/