On 20-12-02 04:30:02, Keith Busch wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 07:57:32PM +0100, Javier González wrote: > > On 01.12.2020 23:03, Minwoo Im wrote: > > > > + > > > > + device_initialize(&ns->cdev_device); > > > > + ns->cdev_device.devt = MKDEV(MAJOR(nvme_ns_base_chr_devt), > > > > + ns->head->instance); > > > > + ns->cdev_device.class = nvme_ns_class; > > > > + ns->cdev_device.parent = ctrl->device; > > > > + ns->cdev_device.groups = nvme_ns_char_id_attr_groups; > > > > + dev_set_drvdata(&ns->cdev_device, ns); > > > > + > > > > + sprintf(cdisk_name, "nvme%dc%dn%d", ctrl->subsys->instance, > > > > + ctrl->instance, ns->head->instance); > > > > > > 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? I meant that someone might misunderstand tht /dev/nvmeXcYnZ is also a blkdev just like /dev/nvmeXnY. I'm just saying it might be, but I'm fine with suggested naming as those two are indicating a single concept (namespace).
