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

[Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>]

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.
> 
> -- james s
> 
> 
> James Bottomley wrote:
>> On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 15:55 -0400, James Smart wrote:
>>> This patch adds a module parameter that supplies a text string
>>> containing a
>>> list of PCI <bus>:<slot>.<func> values to identify adapter instances
>>> that
>>> should *not* be attached to by the driver.

What does this do on systems that use PCI domains?

  domain:bus:slot.func  (??)


>>> -- james s
>>>
>>>
>>>  Signed-off-by: James Smart <james.smart@emulex.com>
>>
>> Is there a reason why you can't just use the generic unbind interface?
>>
>> James


-- 
~Randy