From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:27:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:26:53 -0400 Received: from panic.ohr.gatech.edu ([130.207.47.194]:46764 "HELO havoc.gtf.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:26:39 -0400 Message-ID: <3B3BBD4E.BDDF63DA@mandrakesoft.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:27:10 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik Organization: MandrakeSoft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.6-pre5 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Khachaturov, Vassilii" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RFC: Changes for PCI In-Reply-To: <6B1DF6EEBA51D31182F200902740436802678FB5@mail-in.comverse-in.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "Khachaturov, Vassilii" wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > However, I think the driver (only going by your > description) would be > > more correct to use a pointer to struct pci_dev. We have a > token in the > > kernel that is guaranteed 100% unique to any given PCI device: the > > pointer to its struct pci_dev. > > Is it? With a hotplug device removed and another one added, > isn't there a slight chance that the pci_dev pointer to the new device > will get allocated in place of the old one? If you want to get pedantic, yes ;-) The pci_dev pointer is unique for the lifetime of the PCI device, which works just as well in the example used in the thread. -- Jeff Garzik | Andre the Giant has a posse. Building 1024 | MandrakeSoft |