James Smart wrote: > The oem requirement we have explicitly states not to use the unbind > interface > (we proposed unbind at first as well). > > The issue is what happens on the link while we are bound for that short > amount of time. It confuses the things on the other side of the link. > There's a secondary driver that ends up binding to the adapters we exclude, > and the things on the other side only expected to see the second driver. > > -- james s > > > James Bottomley wrote: >> On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 15:55 -0400, James Smart wrote: >>> This patch adds a module parameter that supplies a text string >>> containing a >>> list of PCI <bus>:<slot>.<func> values to identify adapter instances >>> that >>> should *not* be attached to by the driver. What does this do on systems that use PCI domains? domain:bus:slot.func (??) >>> -- james s >>> >>> >>> Signed-off-by: James Smart <james.smart@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Is there a reason why you can't just use the generic unbind interface? >> >> James -- ~Randy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
