From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [PATCH] lpfc : add module parameter that allows adapter instances to avoid attachment Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:33:57 +0000 Message-ID: <1238168037.3292.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1238097300.27023.2.camel@ogier> <1238098747.3342.54.camel@localhost.localdomain> <49CBE772.80304@emulex.com> <1238100849.3342.58.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090327150940.GK8014@parisc-linux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from accolon.hansenpartnership.com ([76.243.235.52]:33745 "EHLO accolon.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753045AbZC0PeD (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:34:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090327150940.GK8014@parisc-linux.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: James Smart , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 09:09 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 03:54:09PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > > Also (as Randy pointed out) you don't account for the domain. However, > > you could just by not bothering to convert the string to numbers for the > > compare, just compare on dev->bus_id ... which is how a generic one > > would work. > > I think it needs to be PCI and not device core. bus_id isn't guaranteed > to be unique between different bus types. I don't know of any that > conflict, but we don't want to inadvertently disable, say, an SBUS > device while trying to disable a PCI device. Actually they better be ... we'll get into real trouble if they're not because of the way we flatten the space for multiple bus binding drivers. Even if I accepted your argument, I still can't see why we'd only implement this for PCI, and thus why it shouldn't be in the generic device part (except possibly with a bus type name qualifier). James