Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: Ideas for v2.1 | Date | Mon, 17 Jun 1996 15:51:18 -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? > > Or what about a person with two removeable media SCSI drives. It > would be nice it the mountpoint could be specific to the actual > removeable disk so it doesn't matter which removeable drive the disk > is mounted in.
Although I like your idea, I wonder if it is possible to incorporate this into existing filesystems? For it to be practical, I think _all_ fs types should be supported.
-- 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.
|  |