> I don't remember who suggested it a couple of days ago, but I thought it > was a good idea: to simply extend the wiring-down scheme that we already > have to support ATA devices too. He also suggested a more universal device > name like drv0, drv1, drv2, etc rather than deliniating between whether the > drive is ATA or SCSI...I also think that is a good idea as I don't see any > good reason an application should care whether the drive is ATA or SCSI, as > long as the functionality is provided does it matter how?
Agreed. I had always assumed that this was part of the reason for the name change sd -> da, namely that da would (eventually) cover ATA disks also. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
