Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 18:42:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 18:42:55 -0500 Received: from 12-231-249-244.client.attbi.com ([12.231.249.244]:17683 "HELO kroah.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 18:42:54 -0500 Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:46:21 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Scott Murray Cc: "Grover, Andrew" , "Lee, Jung-Ik" , linux-kernel Subject: Re: bare pci configuration access functions ? Message-ID: <20021031234621.GE10689@kroah.com> References: <20021031221136.GC10689@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1156 Lines: 30 On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 05:50:06PM -0500, Scott Murray wrote: > On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Greg KH wrote: > [snip] > > Anyway, this is a nice diversion from the real problem here, for 2.4, > > should I just backport the pci_ops changes which will allow pci > > hotplugging to work again on ia64, or do we want to do something else? > > It would be nice from a hotplug driver maintenance point of view if the > 2.4 and 2.5 interfaces were the same IMO. Yes it would be, but it's not a necessary thing :) > How about submitting the change in 2.4.21-pre? It is a _very_ big change. It hits every architecture. It was the right thing to do in 2.5, I'm just questioning if it's the right thing to do in 2.4 because of the magnitude of it. So, if people say it's ok, I'll do it. But I would like to hear from the PPC64 group first, as I know I caused them a lot of grief and rework because of it. thanks, greg k-h - 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/