On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 01:00:45PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > This scheme is fine as long as only PCI hotplug modules create > > those $slot entries. > > What else would ever create a pci slot? There are several entities which could _create_ a pci slot (ACPI, PCIe, DMI, probably some other pieces of firmware). I'm not sure there's anything else which could _control_ a pci slot (which is i think what you meant). > > But it is limiting, if in the future, we teach the PCI core to > > create $slot entries when a low level device driver, say tg3 or > > whatever, is loaded. > > Then the pci core would be the module there, right? Not the pci driver > that controls the device in the slot. I'd argue we should have no module entry for that case, since there would be nothing to control. > > Since we're talking about an ABI agreement with userspace, I > > think "hotplug_module" is better for future flexibility. > > I disagree, "module" is already part of the ABI, let's not create > something that does the exact same thing, yet is named different :) Agreed. -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." -- 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
