On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 03:05:08AM -0600, Alex Chiang wrote: > * Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Mon, 02 May 2011 16:14:50 -0700 > > Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > That is not right. the device is already there, there is no reason to rescan it. > > > We can not get increase resource for them. > > > > > > Now We already have rescan for pci_bus. > > > > > > So remove rescan for all pci devices. less confusing > > > > > > Finally We remove devices, and rescan bus that there were on before. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > I'm reluctant to break an existing interface like this, even though > > it's only in the "testing" section of the ABI. > > > > Alex, any comments? > > Oof, yeah. :-/ > > I just scanned through the patch series and agree that it makes > more sense to put 'rescan' under the bus, and not on individual > devices. > > That said, I'm fairly certain that there are existing tools out > there that are depending on this interface, which has been around > for a while. > > I think standard ABI deprecation practices should apply here. > > Greg, thoughts? Ooh, I missed the fact that this series removed a sysfs file, you are right, we can't do that. So no, don't delete this file, please fix any tools that might happen to be using it, and then, in a year or so, we can revisit this to see if it makes sense to remove it. thanks, greg k-h -- 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
