On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 06:29:23PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> >I added pci=nobussort since it might not be safe for all MBs. Then I
> >added "pci=bussort". I have no problem taking out "pci=bussort". If you
> >don't want "pci=bussort", please say so. I can provide a new patch which
> >won't define pci_sort_by_bus_slot_func if CONFIG_PCI_SORT_BY_BUS_SLOT
> >is not set and won't have "pci=bussort" either.
> >
> >
>
> You're still missing the point here too.
>
> Your patch has the potential to suddenly make systems unbootable, to
> suddenly reverse people's ethX interface numbering, etc. No command
That is the whole purpose of my patch. But you will only get it when
you set CONFIG_PCI_SORT_BY_BUS_SLOT_FUNC.
> line options in the world will save lkml from being deluged by tons of
> "my system doesn't network anymore" bug reports.
You will only get it when you set CONFIG_PCI_SORT_BY_BUS_SLOT_FUNC on
purpose by hand.
>
> The basic point is "let's proceed with caution, and test test test
> before applying this patch."
Please state clearly what you have in mind. First you were
saying you didn't like pci_sort_by_bus_slot_func defined when
CONFIG_PCI_SORT_BY_BUS_SLOT_FUNC wass not set. Now you were
saying my patch was dangerous. Please make up your mind.
H.J.
-
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 - 22:00:32 EST