From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933212Ab3DYUkl (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:40:41 -0400 Received: from mail-qa0-f48.google.com ([209.85.216.48]:52742 "EHLO mail-qa0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932085Ab3DYUkj (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:40:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:40:33 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: "Stephen M. Cameron" Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, neilb@suse.de, hch@infradead.org, jmoyer@redhat.com, hare@suse.de, shaohua.li@intel.com, vgoyal@redhat.com, stephenmcameron@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] block: Add new generic block device naming interface Message-ID: <20130425204033.GB10990@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <20130425202215.20557.75283.stgit@beardog.cce.hp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130425202215.20557.75283.stgit@beardog.cce.hp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 03:22:15PM -0500, Stephen M. Cameron wrote: > If block drivers could (optionally) share a common device namespace then > grub could be taught about this common namespace once, and any new block > device drivers could take advantage of this namespace and grub would > automatically work with them. Hmmm... maybe I'm missing something but the names assigned this way wouldn't have any kind of stability across boots. Is that good enough? But, if so, I'm kinda having hard time understanding what it'd be able to do which any other name can't do. Can you please elaborate the use case? Thanks. -- tejun