I'll trust that James B's fix resolves things. Thought my testing was straight-forward and ok. Guess not. Humbled again as a mere mortal in the world of sysfs and transport/container logic... :) Anyway, the last item that needs discussion is what name should the symlink have ? Here's a few points on why I chose a "class:<classname>" over "<classobjname>". - Visually, I get more meaning out of seeing the class's name, than what is usually a redundant object name (many device and class objects have the same name). - If a device could ever be associated with more than 1 class, it's supported (and no issues of name collision). - The prefix of "class:" highlights what it is; makes it harder to lose in a long list of attributes; gives a simple handle for regex parsing (ex: "ls class*"); and helps avoid name collision with other attributes. - The class object's name is always derivable from what the symlink points to. - The class name is a good hint for utilities (ok, last 2 are a little weak - you can parse the symlink for either of of them). Preferences ? -- james - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
