> > > > The original problem stemmed from drivers using their ib device name > > (such as mlx4_0), which presents a problem on rename in that when the > > first mlx4 device is registered it would be mlx4_0, then udev renames > > the device to <whatever> but the debugfs files are still in a > > directory named mlx4_0, and then you register another mlx4 device, and > > because there is no mlx4_0 any more, the new device gets the name > > mlx4_0 again, and now the creation of the debugfs files for the second > > mlx4 device fail because the name mlx4_0 is already in use. Your > > naming scheme avoids that problem, and so it is fine just as it is and > > there is no need to break any existing user space or switch to PCI > > address naming schemes. > > Yah, I agree, it still breaks userspace in the sense that the hfi_1 debugfs name > doesn't correlate to any ibdev name, but it doesn't cause any kernel level > problem. > > You should probably still use the PCI name for debugfs and add a symlink to > it from from the unit based name. Agreed. If the RDMA tool and other core functions are using PCI name then it will be easier for users to ID which device is which. But this does not seem to be critical. Keeping the "hfi1_X" name for other tools is fine but I wonder if also adding <pci id>/ib_dev_name (or something) which is updated on device rename would be nice for users as well. But that is just a feature request. Ira
