On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 06:16:44AM +0000, Avri Altman wrote: > In V6, we removed the host and device indices from the bsg device name, > But I have some seconds thoughts about it. > > We are using the bsg device in passthrough mode (bsg_transport_ops), > But the device name: "ufs-bsg" does not imply that. > > Given that the ABI should never change, > if someone in the future will want to add a bsg device that uses the > bsg_scsi_ops, > ufs-bsg-scsi seems a little bit awkward, does it?
We should already have a bsg_scsi_ops instance for every SCSI LU, so they already exist - without any bsg in the name. I think ufs-bsg is ok.
