From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
scameron@beardog.cce.hp.com, axboe@kernel.dk, neilb@suse.de,
hch@infradead.org, jmoyer@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
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 11:17:19 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130429151719.GG8204@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <517E8A26.7060705@suse.de>
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 04:56:38PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 04/26/2013 09:03 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > hey,
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 05:12:20PM -0500, scameron@beardog.cce.hp.com wrote:
> >> It looks like these are called from a function called init_device_map()
> >> that is called from grub_stage2() at least in the version of grub I looked
> >> at (0.97, from rhel6).
> >>
> >> So my assumption is that adding a new block driver with yet another name space
> >> would require adding another bit of code into grub like those above. When I
> >> asked about "best practices" for new block driver device names on the grub devel
> >> mailing list to minimize required changes to grub, nobody argued against that
> >> assumption.
> >
> > I think we kinda need to get down to the root cause of the issue.
> > Nothing against giving common names to devices in itself but there's a
> > non-insigificant chance that we end up with something half-way if the
> > original problem isn't properly understodd.
> >
> Oh, the problem _is_ well understood.
>
> It's the design of grub :-)
>
> grub requires you to re-implement _every_ device naming scheme which
> is present in the kernel.
So then grub needs to be fixed and not the other way around?
Thanks
Vivek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-29 15:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-25 20:22 Stephen M. Cameron
2013-04-25 20:40 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-25 21:07 ` scameron
2013-04-25 21:14 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-25 22:12 ` scameron
2013-04-26 19:03 ` Tejun Heo
2013-04-29 14:56 ` Hannes Reinecke
2013-04-29 15:17 ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2013-04-29 16:06 ` Tejun Heo
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-03-28 16:18 Stephen M. Cameron
2013-03-11 19:00 Stephen M. Cameron
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130429151719.GG8204@redhat.com \
--to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=scameron@beardog.cce.hp.com \
--cc=stephenmcameron@gmail.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome