From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Zhao, Yu" Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/16 v6] PCI: document the new PCI boot parameters Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:35:47 +0800 Message-ID: <4913FDE3.8050804@intel.com> References: <20081022083809.GA3757@yzhao12-linux.sh.intel.com> <20081022084531.GP3773@yzhao12-linux.sh.intel.com> <20081106043235.GA30292@kroah.com> <4913AA03.5060807@intel.com> <20081107025032.GA12824@kroah.com> <4913B8A5.5010806@intel.com> <20081107061603.GC3860@kroah.com> <4913F34A.8020805@intel.com> <20081107080222.GA6284@kroah.com> <4913F97E.7030408@intel.com> <20081107082432.GA6601@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , "achiang@hp.com" , "grundler@parisc-linux.org" , "mingo@elte.hu" , "jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org" , "matthew@wil.cx" , "randy.dunlap@oracle.com" , "rdreier@cisco.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" To: Greg KH Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20081107082432.GA6601@kroah.com> Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 04:17:02PM +0800, Zhao, Yu wrote: >>> Well, to do it "correctly" you are going to have to tell the driver to >>> shut itself down, and reinitialize itself. >>> Turns out, that doesn't really work for disk and network devices without >>> dropping the connection (well, network devices should be fine probably). >>> So you just can't do this, sorry. That's why the BIOS handles all of >>> these issues in a PCI hotplug system. >>> How does the hardware people think we are going to handle this in the >>> OS? It's not something that any operating system can do, is it part of >>> the IOV PCI spec somewhere? >> No, it's not part of the PCI IOV spec. >> >> I just want the IOV (and whole PCI subsystem) have more flexibility on >> various BIOSes. So can we reconsider about resource rebalance as boot >> option, or should we forget about this idea? > > As you have proposed it, the boot option will not work at all, so I > think we need to forget about it. Especially if it is not really > needed. I guess at least one thing would work if people don't want to boot twice: give the bus number 0 as rebalance starting point, then all system resources would be reshuffled :-) Thanks, Yu