> How that sticker predict what instance number the software assigns for a > device? and it seems that cfgadm -v only report the mapping between Ap_Id to > /devices path. That won't be changed.
Right -- you need to use /etc/path_to_inst to get the rest of the information. > But I agree that after vanity naming, it is not obvious of mapping > between the Ap_Id to the link vanity name. Maybe I should somehow add > an option to show-phys to show the device path of a physical device? That's possible -- or the Ap_Id, though machines that aren't DR-capable won't have that AFAIK. > My concern is: This is only a tentative plan. Does writing it in the PSARC > document makes it as a commitment? I think it commits us to the initial phase, and says that we plan to do the other phases -- but without a timeframe, there isn't a firm commitment for those. The core intent is to explain to PSARC that we're proposing a phased approach to rolling out vanity names to reduce risk. -- meem
