On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 07:00:23PM -0400, Scott Murray wrote:
> >
> > I've not implemented it yet, but I'm pretty sure I can detect surprise
> > extractions in my cPCI driver. The only thing holding me back at the
> > moment is that there's no clear way to report this status change via
> > pcihpfs without doing something a bit funky like reporting "-1" in the
> > "adapter" node.
>
> Why would you need to report anything other than if the card is present
> or not? What would a "supprise" removal cause you to do differently?
Thinking about it a bit more, my idea to use -1 is indeed unnecessary,
since userspace code can check if the adapter node changes to 0 before
it itself writes a 0 to it. If multiple users/software play around with
the nodes at the same time, they'll get what's coming to them...
> Hm, well I guess we should be extra careful in trying to shut down any
> driver bound to that card...
Yeah, as Steven mentions in his reply, Linux drivers don't handle this
well at the moment.
Scott
-- Scott Murray SOMA Networks, Inc. Toronto, Ontario e-mail: scottm@somanetworks.com- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 31 2002 - 22:00:25 EST