On Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:17 pm Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 01:43:53PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 12, 2008 1:15 pm Greg KH wrote: > > > > In the face of system configuration changes and kernel changes that's > > > > true. But for a specific configuration it's generally stable, and > > > > people definitely rely on that today. > > > > > > They do? In what way? > > > > > > It isn't stable at all. I have 2 laptops here that randomly decide to > > > reassign the pci bus ids depending on the phase of the moon. Caused > > > havoc with a xorg driver that was trying to "assume" that it always > > > knew what the pci bus id ordering was going to be. > > > > Well there's one example: config files often specify specific PCI bus > > IDs. > > Config files for what? network devices usually use the MAC address to > name them, and storage devices usually use a UUID or a volume label if > the distro is smart :) X for one (like you already mentioned), along with a ton of site specific configuration scripts; it would be naive to think otherwise. But that's beside the point. It's true that you can't rely on the bus layout in many cases, but that doesn't keep people from doing it and doesn't mean it never makes sense. I'm not going to argue that anyone should rely on bus numbers remaining static; I've been on both sides of the issue and I know we're not going to make Linux keep things consistent on that front. But the issue isn't black & white... 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
