From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH] lpfc : add module parameter that allows adapter instances to avoid attachment Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:11:40 -0600 Message-ID: <20090327151139.GL8014@parisc-linux.org> References: <1238097300.27023.2.camel@ogier> <1238098747.3342.54.camel@localhost.localdomain> <49CBE772.80304@emulex.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:52610 "EHLO mail.parisc-linux.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758843AbZC0PLm (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:11:42 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49CBE772.80304@emulex.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Smart Cc: James Bottomley , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" 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."