On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Douglas Gilbert <dgilbert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 14-02-03 10:08 AM, Jeremy Linton wrote: >> So whats wrong with the simple solution? You throw the ones for st >> away, and >> create the st handles from the nst worker. > > > Doesn't seem to be any good solutions to this > problem. If you can't discovery something without > modifying its state, then what? For udev and/or > sg_inq to know about the special relationship > between st<i> nodes and nst<i> nodes seems > unreasonable IMO. > > The cleanest way I can think of is for the st driver to > show this relationship via sysfs. But then why should > udev going mining for that relationship? A sysfs flag > from the st driver indicating a node is "undiscoverable" > might be a start. Udev rules explicitely match on device names, that should be fine. It can just not be included in the match if it does not provide the needed functionality, or if it is not needed. Kay -- 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
