Re: RFC: ATA to CAM integration patch

Hello, hope you're having a nice day,

Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
> I, personally, think this is not very good idea. People are used to
> CAM-devices getting enumerated as da0, da1, etc. All the documentation
> talks about ad0 for ATA and da0 (plus camcontrol) for SCSI, USB,
> Firewire devices. We also have fd0 and cd0 and should stick to
> two-letter-plus-number codes. So either make them all ad0 or da0. I'd
> vote for the latter, as that is what Linux is doing (more or less) and
> people are already familiar with USB drives or new SATA drives showing
> up as "SCSI drives, so they get the SCSI names".
>   
This poses the question of daXX enumeration order. I've already had some 
'fun' with an IBM server which has an LVD/320 SCSI controller. While the 
controller's bus was enumerated properly, somehow if you attach an USB 
mass storage device before the system boot that said mass storage could 
suddenly appear earlier than one of the SCSI disks (that was on 
7.0-RELEASE) thus breaking the boot process sometimes (when it appeared 
as da0).

--
Kamigishi Rei
KREI-RIPE