On Tue, January 28, 2003 at 12:40 AM, Rusty Lynch wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 23:50, Stanley Wang wrote:
> > Hi, Scott,
> > After reading your CPCI Hot Swap support codes, I have a suggestion
> > to enhance it:
> > How about to make it be full hot swap compliant?
> > I mean we could also do some works like "disable_slot" when
> we receive
> > the #ENUM & EXT signal. Hence the user could yank the hot
> swap board
> > without issuing command on the console.
> > How do you think about it?
> >
>
> How does this behavior translate to "full hot swap
> compliant"? I assume
> you are talking about wording from PICMG 2.16, which in my opinion
> describes the full software stack, not just the driver. Any kind of
> full CPCI solution would have all the user space components to
> coordinate disabling a slot before the operator physically yanks the
> board (and therefore behave as PICMG specifies). I'm not so sure the
> driver knows enough to make a policy decision on what to do when an
> operator bypasses the world and just yanks a board out with
> no warning.
How is this functionally different from ejecting a PCMCIA card in use? Is
the driver obligated to do more than prevent a system crash and present
errors to user level until the last close?
Ed
-
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 : Fri Jan 31 2003 - 22:00:23 EST