On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 04:59:44AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On May 25, 2008 15:42 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > A LUN doesn't make any sense in filesystem context. That's a > > scsi-centric acronym that doesn't even make sense in a scsi-centric > > filesystem universe because a LUN can of course contain multiple > > partitions. It's also extremly ill-defined when using volume managers. > > What else do you propose calling this? It isn't a LUN in the SCSI sense > of course, but there is definitely a need to be able to identify multiple > disks. Regardless of whether there is a single disk or multiple disks > involved, it is generally called a LUN. It is a better than calling it > a "disk" or a "partition". How about "device"? It's more generic than LUN but also doesn't imply a particular implementation. A volume manager exports individual volumes as devices. Regular partitions on a disk are also exported to user space as devices. I don't think anyone would get confused and think a filesystem would be using a non-storage device. Brad Boyer flar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
