Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: Ideas for v2.1 | Date | Fri, 14 Jun 1996 18:08:49 -0400 (EDT) | From | "Andrew E. Mileski" <> |
| |
As a SCSI user, I put my vote in for using a naming convention like: c0t0l0 (controller, target (device), LUN) but what about the _FUTURE_?? Ultra SCSI devices can be dynamically reconfigured by software to a different target number. Or will Linux decide now to _NEVER_ use such a feature?
P.S. People, please keep quoting to a minimum...some threads are getting ridiculous. A friendly reminder :-)
-- Andrew E. Mileski mailto:aem@ott.hookup.net My home page http://www.redhat.com/~aem/ Linux Plug-and-Play Project Leader. See URL http://www.redhat.com/pnp/
Red Hat Software sponsors these pages - I have no other affilitation with Red Hat Software, and I have never used any of their products.
|  |