> > 'Path based names' do not deal with systems that have multiple
> > paths to the same device. For example, if I have two host adapters
> > talking on the same bus for redundancy, which name to I give to the
> > devices on the bus?
>
> That depends on how you're handling the redundancy; either you do it
> inside the kernel in which case the resulting device has a virtual
> path, or you do it outside in which case you have two paths which point
> to the same device.
I don't see how it helps to have a virtual path of any kind. In the
case of fully connected I/O, everything would have a virual path and
the path information would be useless to the user. I much prefer the
idea of exporting each unique device to the user, allowing them to
query path information and perhaps select path use behavior, but
default to having the peripheral driver for the device handle most
routing behavior automagically. I would expect most people to want
the system to fail-over to anouther route to the device instead of
requiring manual intervention on the part of the process using that
device.
--
Justin
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
