Peter Memishian wrote: > > But the door name is not exposed to administrators anyway, so that it does > > not need to have semantic meaning. > > It's not directly exposed, but they will see it through pfiles(1) and in > the filesystem itself. So I'd prefer for it to be meaningful. > > > Further, using link name as the door name only introduces unnecessary > > complication. The door name is derived in the attach() routine and kept in > > the kernel, although it can be done to update the door name every time the > > link name is changed, I don't see why that is necessary. > > Then maybe it could just use the device name? Or does that make things > complex somewhere else? > This is fine.
- Cathy
