On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 04:30:02AM +0900, Keith Busch wrote: > > > In multi-path, private namespaces for a head are not in /dev, so I don't > > > think this will hurt private namespaces (e.g., nvme0c0n1), But it looks > > > like it will make a little bit confusions between chardev and hidden blkdev. > > > > > > I don't against to update nvme-cli things also even naming conventions are > > > going to become different than nvmeXcYnZ. > > > > Agree. But as I understand it, Keith had a good argument to keep names > > aligned with the hidden bdev. > > My suggested naming makes it as obvious as possible that the character > device in /dev/ and the hidden block device in /sys/ are referring to > the same thing. What is confusing about that? > > > It is also true that in that comment he suggested nesting the char > > device in /dev/nvme > > Yeah, I'm okay with sub-directories for these special handles, but there > are arguments against it too. I don't feel that strongly about it either > way. I'd prefer different naming for the char vs the block devices. Yes, this will require a little work in the userspace tools to support the character device, but I think it is much cleaner. Devices in subdirectories of /dev/ are very rare and keep causing problem with userspace tooling for the few drivers that use them, so I don't think they are a good idea.
