On 2018-06-12 01:43 -0400, Michael Shell wrote: > As I understand it, that is the policy of the kernel developers - a system > might work in many cases, but it is not guaranteed and a future kernel > update could break systems that rely on any fixed /dev/sd* naming. To me, > this means that, until udev becomes active and we can control things as we > wish, any /dev/sd* specifiers are to be considered worthless. > > I do not like that policy. Unless countermanded by a kernel option, > on-motherboard controllers should be enumerated before those of any add-on > card or USB device. Also, SATA slots for a given controller should be > enumerated in a fixed order, and IMHO, a SATA/PATA/SCSI slot should be > enumerated regardless of whether a drive has been plugged into it. I would > go so far as to make it that an initial, say, half a dozen drive names would > be reserved for each USB controller regardless of whether a USB mass storage > device was actually present at boot. I would also not enumerate USB drives > in the /dev/sdx sequence, they would get their own sequence /dev/usbdx, > because those do not have known/fixed slots as SATA controllers do. > > In a more complex arrangement, controllers could be enumerated like the > devices they carry - /dev/sdAb1 - controller A, drive b, partition 1 > with motherboard controllers being enumerated first, and then those on > PCI, etc., slots, in the order of the slots they are plugged into.
That's why devtmpfs and udev are here. Differnet people have different tastes of naming policy. Now they can just modify udev rules to provide a custom naming convention. But udev is not in early boot stage... If I have to use a persistant naming policy at early boot, I'll write a script to implement it and create an initrd. -- Xi Ruoyao <[email protected]> School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
