Hi James (and everyone else), I wanted to continue the discussion on FCoE statistics and a possible device tree reorganization. The original thread has been expired from my mail system, so I have to start this new thread. The main theme was that we might want to convert FC to be a bus. For reference here is your proposed sysfs layout- /sys/.../fcportX/fcfportY/fcfabricZ/fcvportA/fcrportB /fcpinitC/hostD/target<H:C:T>/<H:C:T> I can see a benefit to extending the FC device tree. Assuming that each of these devices is created as they're discovered by the FC HBA then it's giving a more accurate description of the system's state. For example, in FCoE if you were to succeed with FIP and discover a FCF, but the FLOGI failed then user space could clearly see that devices were only created up to the fcfabric. I also think that it simply makes more room for new attributes. With FCFs and FCoE attributes it would be nice to have them better organized instead of just grouping them all under the fc_host. Aside from a sysfs reorganization, which could be done without making FC a bus, the main benefit seems to be that other FC4 protocols could use a FC HBA. Is there other goodness that I'm overlooking? Also, buses usually have devices and drivers. I'm not sure what the FC drivers would be since SCSI would ultimately provide the drivers for SCSI-FCP. Would a FC bus only have devices and no drivers? Thanks, //Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: 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