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

[James Smart <James.Smart@Emulex.Com>]

Ok - I'll see what I can come up with.

-- james s

James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 16:37 -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.
> 
> OK, so it sounds like a proposed extension to the generic unbind
> interfaces where you specify a no_bind list on the kernel or module
> command line.
> 
> 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.
> 
> James
> 
> 
>