Re: Ideas for v2.1
Andrew E. Mileski (aem@nic.ott.hookup.net)
Mon, 17 Jun 1996 15:51:18 -0400 (EDT)
> > 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.