On 06/22/2009 05:34 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/pci/probe.c b/drivers/pci/probe.c index f1ae247..b613cad 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/probe.c +++ b/drivers/pci/probe.c @@ -1056,8 +1056,7 @@ int pci_scan_slot(struct pci_bus *bus, int devfn) if (dev&& !dev->is_added) /* new device? */ nr++; - if ((dev&& dev->multifunction) || - (!dev&& pcibios_scan_all_fns(bus, devfn))) { + if (dev&& dev->multifunction) { for (fn = 1; fn< 8; fn++) { dev = pci_scan_single_device(bus, devfn + fn); if (dev) {What a good idea. I was just looking at making this more complicated (due to the ARI capability). I'd like to know what the KVM / Xen / ... people think about this. I don't know if they rely on function 5 being able to show up out of the blue.
You mean have a function 5 without a function 0? This doesn't impact kvm at all.
Moreover, I see pcibios_scan_all_fns() uniformly defined as 0, so this patch doesn't change much, does it?
-- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
