On Thursday 10 April 2003 04:53 pm, Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote:
> From: Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@us.ibm.com>
>
> > I am more worried about names slipping. I atleast hope
> > to see device names not changing by just doing
> > rmmod/insmod.
> >
> > But you see, the present sd_index_bits[] gives no such
> > guarantee. In sd_detach a bit is cleared, in sd_attach
> > the first free bit is given out. There is no memory.
>
> But the disks are probed in the same manner as last time
> (if the disks/controllers are not moved, crashed etc..).
> So we will end up getting same names.
>
> Oh, but if next_index is 0 in the module (or reset by the
> init_module code), then also with index = next_index++
> things will be the same after rmmod/insmod.
Here is my problem..
#insmod ips.o
< found 10 disks>
#insmod qla2300.o
< found 10 disks>
#rmmod ips.o
<removed 10 disks>
#insmod ips.o
<found 10 disks - but new names>
- Badari
-
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 : Tue Apr 15 2003 - 22:00:22 EST