On Monday, September 01, 2008 5:19 pm Alex Chiang wrote: > * Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx>: > > On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 12:40:18PM -0600, Alex Chiang wrote: > > > We get the "slot already scheduled for removal" because that > > > particular device has 2 functions, and we're creating slots > > > on a per-slot basis now, not a per-function basis. > > > > > > Although, I wonder, Willy -- is that really the right thing > > > to do? Seems like fakephp would be more useful if we did > > > operate on a per-function basis, and not per-slot. Especially > > > given Yu's work with SR-IOV, where we can apparently have > > > lots of functions per a physical device. > > > > I suspect it depends on what you believe the point of fakephp > > is. > > Ok, this was all developed before I started working in this area, > or Linux, even. ;) > > > My assumption was that it was a way to fake what would happen > > if you had a hotplug controller for a particular slot. In that > > context, the change I made was clearly correct. If you want to > > use it for hot-removing individual functions from a Linux guest > > running under a hypervisor (for example), that's much less > > useful. > > Sure, that sounds reasonable. > > In that case, my patch should fix the stupid regression I > introduced, but if others think that fakephp would be more useful > for hot-removing functions, I wouldn't object to reverting the > original patch. I don't have a preference here; whatever is most useful for people is probably what we should go for. Zhao? Thanks, Jesse -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
