> > 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. > Just to be clear, we can only report /devices path for "active" physical links. Once the link is "Removed", it might not associate to any hardware.
> > 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. > Okay. I will add this. Thanks - Cathy
