On 01.12.2020 20:38, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
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?
Ok. I see your point. I was thinking of the case where the multipath
bdev is also enabled so we would have the same name in different places
referring to a different device.
> 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.
Would something like nvmeXnYc work here or your prefer something
different where we need to implement new, dedicated filters for
user-space? I thing you suggested nvmegXnY at some point?
Here, the naming would be for both the char device and the sysfs
entry.
