Re: [PATCH] lpfc : add module parameter that allows adapter instances to avoid attachment

[Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 04:37:06PM -0400, James Smart wrote:
> The oem requirement we have explicitly states not to use the unbind 
> interface
> (we proposed unbind at first as well).
> 
> The issue is what happens on the link while we are bound for that short
> amount of time. It confuses the things on the other side of the link.
> There's a secondary driver that ends up binding to the adapters we exclude,
> and the things on the other side only expected to see the second driver.

By the way, are these interfaces real or virtual (SR-IOV virtual)?  PCI
bus numbers aren't the most stable way of referring to devices any more.
I don't suppose we can key this off PCIe DSN, can we?

-- 
Matthew Wilcox				Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."