To: =?iso-8859-1?Q? "Martin_Schwidefsky" ?= <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Cset 1.1490.4.201 - dasd naming
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Arnd_Bergmann?= <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pete_Zaitcev?= <zaitcev@redhat.com>,
       =?iso-8859-1?Q?Horst_Hummel?= <Horst.Hummel@de.ibm.com>
Message-Id: <26879984$10753165904018076eb99703.79657228@config1.schlund.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:10:02 +0100
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 757
Lines: 17


> That is probably the main argument to go back to the old names. After
> udev and friends are in place it is not important how the disk is named
> internally. The only place where it would surface is on the root=
> parameter.

Even for root=, it probably does not matter as long as udev is used
in the initrd/initramfs. The main argument against the new naming is
that udev can trivially create these or other persistent names, while
it's very hard for udev to calculate the compatible names.

        Arnd <><
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/