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 10:14:48 -0600 Message-ID: <20090327161448.GM8014@parisc-linux.org> 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> <1238168037.3292.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:41257 "EHLO mail.parisc-linux.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751669AbZC0QPI (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:15:08 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1238168037.3292.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: James Smart , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 03:33:57PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote: > 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. Er ... where do we do that? As far as I'm aware, to bind to multiple busses, you register multiple foo_driver. They're separate namespaces. > 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). Adding the bus name qualifier would work. It seems like much more typing, in order to get what advantage over just implementing it for PCI? -- 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."